COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

NOVEMBER 21, 2003

The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, was called to order by Chairman Monty Walford at 3:00 p.m., Friday, November 21, 2003, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Councilman Hogan led the Invocation.

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

Approve Minutes. Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Gibson to approve the Administrative Conference Summary Minutes of November 10, 2003 and the Council Meeting Minutes of November 11, 2003. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Green and Jackson. 7. Absent: None.

Awards, Recognition of Distinguished Guests, and Communications of the Mayor Which Are Required By Law. Mr. Dark: The Mayor and the CAO are both traveling this afternoon. We don’t have any Communications.

Distinguished Guest: Res. 183 of 2003: To name Evangel Christian Academy’s Evangel Eagles as an official Goodwill Ambassador for the city of Shreveport. (G/Jackson) [To be addressed at a later meeting.]

Convention Center Report and Property Standards Report: The Chairman noted that the Reports were received yesterday.

Public Hearing: None.

Confirmations and/or Appointments: None.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda:

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

1. Resolution No. 191 of 2003 by Councilman Carmody: A resolution to require all revenues received from the Red River Entertainment District’s owners, managers and tenants to be budgeted and used to repay the $5,000,000 Section 108 Loan and/or to fund housing and infrastructure projects in CDBG eligible neighborhoods, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

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

2. Ordinance No. 200 of 2003: An ordinance amending the 2003 General Fund Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 201 of 2003: An ordinance to amend Section 62-78 of the Code of Ordinances relative to the Department of Public Assembly and Recreation Fee Schedule and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance No. 202 of 2003: An ordinance closing and abandoning a portion of Timber Knoll Drive and a portion of 10' utility easements in the Timber Knoll Unit 2 Subdivision located in the SE 1/4 of Section 2 (T17N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 203 of 2003: An ordinance to reverse the decision rendered by the Metropolitan Planning Commission during their public hearing meeting of October 1, 2003 by closing and abandoning Timber Oak Drive and a portion of a 10' utility easement in the Timber Knoll Unit 2 Subdivision located in the SE 1/4 of Section 2 (T17N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Public Comments. None.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION:

TO INTRODUCE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ON CONSENT:

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for Adoption of Resolution No. 184 of 2003. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION:

RESOLUTION NO. 184 of 2003

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MARK DARWIN PUGH & LUEMILY GRAY PUGH, LOCATED AT 6460 NORTH LAKESHORE DR., TO CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Mark Darwin Pugh & Luemily Gray Pugh, be authorized to connect the building located at 6460 North Lakeshore Dr., to the sewer system of the City of Shreveport.

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

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

ORDINANCES:

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Green to postpone Ordinances Nos. 186 through 189 of 2003 until the December 9, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

1. Ordinance No. 186 of 2003 by Councilman Walford: An ordinance to create and establish a no parking zone between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on either side of the 600 block of Stephenson Street and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 187 of 2003 by Councilman Walford: An ordinance to create and establish a no parking zone on the south side of the 1500 block of Dickinson Street and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 188 of 2003 by Councilman Gibson: An ordinance to repeal a portion of Ordinance No. 107 of 1991 which created a two-way stop at the intersection of Hidden Hollow Drive and Overcross Drive, and to create and establish the intersection of Hidden Hollow Drive and Overcross Street as a four way stop intersection and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance No. 189 of 2003 by Councilman Gibson: An ordinance to repeal a portion of Ordinance No. 107 of 1991 which created a two-way stop at the intersection of Beaver creek Drive and Trail Ridge Road and to create and establish the intersection of Beaver creek Drive and Trail Ridge Road as a four way stop intersection and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION:

The Deputy Clerk read the resolution by title: Resolution No. 177 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a guarantee of payment of certain reimbursement obligations of Shreveport Convention Center Hotel Authority that may be owned in connection with a termination of the Hilton Hotel Franchise Agreement; authorizing the Mayor to request approval from the Louisiana State Bond Commission relative to same; and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Carmody to postpone the resolution until the December 9, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

The Deputy Clerk read the resolution by title: Resolution No. 178 of 2003 by Councilman Lester: A resolution to recognize PACE International Union And Pace Local 4-25 as the exclusive representative agent for certain City employees for the purposes stated herein, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Gibson to postpone the resolution until the December 9, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 180 OF 2003

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 FOR THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF LOUISIANA FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING THE I-49 INTERCHANGE LANDSCAPING PROJECT BETWEEN LA 526 AND KINGS HIGHWAY, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the Mayor is authorized to enter into a supplemental agreement no. 1agreement with the State of Louisiana for the purposes of constructing the I-49 Interchange Landscaping Project Between LA 526 and Kings’ Highway, And To Otherwise Provide With Respect Thereto.

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

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

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

RESOLUTION NO. 185 OF 2003

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE SHREVEPORT-BOSSIER CONVENTION AND TOURIST BUREAU AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Shreveport-Bossier Convention and Tourist Bureau is required to submit its annual budget to the City of Shreveport for approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that the Shreveport-Bossier Convention and Tourist Bureau budget for 2004, a copy of which was filed with the Clerk of Council on November 21, 2003, be and the same is hereby approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Shreveport- Bossier Convention and Tourist Commission, acting as the governing body for the Bureau, is hereby authorized to adjust individual line items within the approved 2004 budget, provided that any adjustment which increases the total budget shall require the approval of the City Council.

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

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

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

RESOLUTION NO. 191 OF 2003

A RESOLUTION TO REQUIRE ALL REVENUES RECEIVED FROM THE RED RIVER ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT’S OWNERS, MANAGERS AND TENANTS TO BE BUDGETED AND USED TO REPAY THE $5,000,000 SECTION 108 LOAN AND/OR TO FUND HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN CDBG ELIGIBLE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

BY: COUNCILMAN CARMODY

WHEREAS, by Resolution No.172 of 1999 and Resolution No. 202 of 2000, the City Council approved a $5,000,000 loan under Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, to entities doing business as the "Red River Entertainment District", for new construction and renovation within the area designated as the Red River Entertainment District located under the Texas Street Bridge and on Commerce Street; and

WHEREAS, the $5,000,000 loan was made to Red River Real Estate Venture, L.L.C., and Red River Entertainment Company for the purposes stated above; the loan is in default and the first mortgage holder has foreclosed on it’s loan; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport is negotiating an agreement with the new owners of the Red River Entertainment District for a percentage of the "net recovery" of the Red River Entertainment District; and

WHEREAS, all proceeds recovered from the Red River Entertainment District by the City of Shreveport should be used to repay the $5,000,000 Section 108 Loan and/or to fund housing and infrastructure projects in CDBG eligible neighborhoods; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that all revenues received by the City of Shreveport from the Red River Entertainment District’s owners, managers and tenants shall be budgeted and used to repay the $5,000,000 Section 108 Loan and/or to fund housing and infrastructure projects in CDBG eligible neighborhoods.

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

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

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Jackson passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Hogan. 1.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS:

1. Resolution No. 186 of 2003: A resolution authorizing an amendment to the agreement between the City of Shreveport, Shreveport Redevelopment Agency and Shreveport Urban Renaissance Corporation, Inc., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 187 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Articles of Agreement - changes to utility facilities with the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation & Development for the construction and relocation of the water & sewer mains on (LA. 3231) Jefferson Paige Rd. (Greenwood Rd. to I-220) S. P. N. 809-13-0001

3. Resolution No. 188 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to donate semi-automatic rifles listed in Appendix "A" to the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office in Shreveport, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

4. Resolution No. 189 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the donation of a Fire Department utility trailer to Louisiana Critical Incident Stress Management inc., and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

5. Resolution No. 190 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement for parking systems management with the Downtown Development Authority and otherwise providing with respect thereto

Read by title and as read motion Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green for Introduction of the Resolution to lay over until the December 9, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Hogan, Gibson, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES:

1. Ordinance Number 196 of 2003: An ordinance to amend certain sections of Chapter 38 of the Code of Ordinances relative to property standards; to adopt Section 38-111(7); and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance Number 197 of 2003: An ordinance amending the 2003 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance Number 198 of 2003: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located 400 feet west of the Intersection of Ellerbe Road and Chinquapin, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District, to B-2, Neighborhood Business District with MPC Approval, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance Number 199 of 2003: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the north side of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop 1200 feet east of Kingston Road, Shreveport, Caddo, Parish, Louisiana, from R-3, Urban, Multiple-family Residence District, to B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District, with MPC Approval, "limited to climate control storage, mini-warehouses, residence and outside storage of RV’s & boats," only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 200 of 2003: An ordinance amending the 2003 General Fund Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

6. Ordinance No. 201 of 2003: An ordinance to amend Section 62-78 of the Code of Ordinances relative to the Department of Public Assembly and Recreation Fee Schedule and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

7. Ordinance No. 202 of 2003: An ordinance closing and abandoning a portion of Timber Knoll Drive and a portion of 10' utility easements in the Timber Knoll Unit 2 Subdivision located in the SE 1/4 of Section 2 (T17N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

8. Ordinance No. 203 of 2003: An ordinance to reverse the decision rendered by the Metropolitan Planning Commission during their public hearing meeting of October 1, 2003 by closing and abandoning Timber Oak Drive and a portion of a 10' utility easement in the Timber Knoll Unit 2 Subdivision located in the SE 1/4 of Section 2 (T17N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Carmody for Introduction of the Ordinances to lay over until the December 9, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Hogan, Gibson, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE:

1. Ordinance No. 155 of 2003 by Councilman Jackson: An ordinance amending the 2003 budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Mr. Thompson: If you are going to consider these today, some of these you can vote for and some you can’t. I mean, you can’t vote for all of them is what I’m saying. If you vote for Ordinance 155 without amendments, you can vote for Ordinance 156 also.

Having passed first reading on October 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 Jackson, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No. 1 Councilman Gibson:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Paragraph 1. Estimated Receipts:

Decrease Miscellaneous Revenues by $1,190,000 and the total by a like amount.

In Paragraph 2. Appropriations:

Decrease Liability Reserves by $1,190,000 and the total by a like amount.

Councilman Green: Is that Amendment 1?

Mr. Thompson: Yes. Would you like for her to read all of the amendments?

Councilman Green: Yes. Can you vote on that one, today?

Mr. Thompson: Yes.

Councilman Jackson: Point of Order. Would the appropriate thing to do if we need to take care of this, even if we don’t support it be to ‘so move’ and ‘second it’ and ask to vote ‘nay’ and then that would do away with that particular amendment?

Mr. Thompson: You can do it that way or if nobody asked that it would be read—yes, that would be the appropriate way to do it.

Councilman Walford: Should these be done in reverse order, is there an order that they should be done in. Should we go 3, 2, 1, back to the original or are they 1, 2, 3. I am asking a procedural question, if I may.

Mr. Thompson: I don’t think it matters. But let me go through this the way I started to and maybe that will give you an idea of where we are trying to go.

Councilman Walford: Unless some member has some objection.

Mr. Thompson: I mean, I am just going to read some: Ordinance 155, if there are no amendments and Ordinance 156 can both be adopted, that is one scenario that you can do.

Ordinance 155 as amended by Amendments 1 and 2 and Ordinance 156 can all be adopted.

If Amendment No. 3 to Ordinance 155 is adopted, Amendments 1 and 2 and Ordinance 156 can not be adopted.

Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of Amendment No. 1.

Councilman Gibson: This issue has been on the document for a few weeks. I think it is imperative that we take advantage of an opportunity to take badly needed resources to put into capital improvements, specifically asphalt overlay and sidewalk repairs and things of that nature along with assisting some of the problems that we have in terms of finding resources for the Police Department in terms of some of their continuing education for interpersonal skills and sensitivity training.

Not to mention the fact that we have put ourselves in a severe problem in terms of the Police Department. We are losing good police officers to other communities because we’ve cut their education assistance program. In fact, I believe the earliest under or current budget that we are considering for that to be re-implemented is in the Fall. This $70,000 part of this amendment would give those employees including police officers the ability to get their education assistance program back on track starting January 1. In addition, I think that one of the things that one of my colleagues, Councilman Lester had put into play with attempts to have more money for neighborhood revitalization, there is some monies and resources available for that.

Obviously when we deal with budgets, we have to make choices. This money was monies we wouldn’t had otherwise. I think that the taxpayer deserves the opportunity over and beyond what we currently have in terms of budgets, which right now, I think all of us going through the last 3 or 4 weeks in terms of budgets, budget talks that we have been continually to see a shortage of resources going to the infrastructure improvements, the lion’s share of this money going to that very thing to assist our neighborhoods and their streets and sidewalk repairs along with things for other resources for, like I said, for the Police Department in terms of some of the training, badly needed training of which I think this Council went through some major dialogue early this year because of an unfortunate shooting. And, then we continue to have complaints from various citizens about things in terms of interpersonal skills with our Police Department.

I think that any time we can give our Police Chief more resources to put back into reinvesting and training and continuing ed for our Police Department that would be definitely needed.

So, I would urge my colleagues to support this. I think that it would be a major step in the right direction in terms of sending a message to the taxpayer that we are serious about infrastructure improvements and other city services, and I would urge you to support that.

Councilman Jackson: I didn’t notice, but as I was going through reading the other amendments, it seems that the original ordinance was mine and it seemed to me at this point with all the different things that we’ve said about it that, Amendment 3 seems to put us in the last vulnerable position right now, with regards to that pot of money, all together.

So, I want to encourage the Council men not withstanding what Councilman Gibson has just articulated and certainly nothing that would be incongruent with what he said, but I think that Amendment 1 doesn’t put us in the best posture at this time, so I would ask and urge the Councilmen to vote ‘no’ on Amendment 1 and we can deal with it, I guess, down the road a little bit.

Councilman Green: On Amendment 3, is one that I sponsored and I think that with us having the financial problems that we have now the tax base and also with the lawsuit with the Fire and Police Retirement Board, I think that it is best that we hold on to as much money as we possible can because we don’t know the outcome of those situations.

So, I would urge you to defeat this particular amendment and secure the funds for the betterment of our City.

Councilman Hogan: Regarding the Fire and Police Pension lawsuit, Mr. Dark do you have an update for us on that?

Mr. Dark: Mr. Hogan we had been advised that we might get a decision this week. As of 3 o’clock we had not gotten one, so we don’t any more than we did when we went down there.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Lester, I wanted to ask you about the $100,000 to go in to the Neighborhood Improvements Program. I noticed on the Riverfront Development Budget that you had asked for the $126,000 or so (it was $18,000 per district) to into neighborhood improvements. Is this in addition to that? If this passing with the $100,000 are you still going to ask for the other amount in the Riverfront Development or no?

Councilman Lester: That is correct that this is in addition to what we are asking from the Riverfront Development.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Dark: Mr. Chair, is it possible for me to speak?

Councilman Walford: I’m sorry?

Mr. Dark: At what point is it possible for me to speak?

Councilman Walford: I would assume when one of the Council members ask you a question or if all else fails, I’ll call on you.

Councilman Lester: To answer his question, with this amendment, instead of looking at roughly about $18,000 per Council district, you are looking at over $32,285 per council district.

Councilman Hogan: You are talking about, a combined total?

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Dark, I’ll take it that you are representing the Mayor, so I will call on you at this time and if there is objection, I’ll do it at my debate time.

Mr. Dark: We do not support Amendment No. 1. We do not support Amendment No. 2. We do support Amendment No. 3 for the reasons described. We do believe that these funds are essential to be held onto to preserve our budget flexibility for next year. We also would point out that several of the items in the first amendment, would lapse in four weeks. Overlay could be encumbered before any of the others could not and appropriating them would do you no good at this point.

So, those are our reasons we sent you a memorandum on why we’d prefer you did not spend the Pirates money right now. I think when you adopt the 2004 budgets, you will probably have several places to put it and mostly in Pension Fund.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Dark, 1. I have information that shows LMA did get a favorable response today, and I hope that you are not holding back on information on that. But, I guess we’ll find out in tomorrow’s paper about that specific thing, and I think there are several other people on Council that has gotten the same information, regarding LMA getting a favorable response.

2. I think we have $10 million dollars in Retained Risk and to continue to stock pile money not knowing outcomes of certain things, to me is short changing the taxpayer in terms of infrastructure improvements knowing that we have a shortage and we have continued to cut our streets and our drainage and some other city services.

This is a tremendous opportunity to move this thing forward and I think to continue to scare this City Council into thinking that we are going to have some potential problems when in fact the word we are hearing is that LMA did get a favorable response. The other side is planning to appeal. An attorney told me today it is good, and I think I turned to my colleague Councilman Lester, if you’ve got a favorable on your side and you go into an appeal process, you are one step ahead of the ball game if you’ve got that on your side.

But this is badly needed money over and beyond and for the public’s consumption, this is money that would be over and beyond the current budget money that we put into infrastructure. We are already $8 million dollars short, and what we do in terms of infrastructure, Mike Strong and his department do a yo-man’s job with a shoestring budget. And, for this Council to not take the opportunity to step up and demonstrate to the taxpayers that this Council is serious about taking care of basic infrastructure and taking care of the neighborhood in terms of streets which are in desperate need for additional resources to help the Police Department in their training needs and to take care of some other vital essentials of which this Council has the opportunity to do so, I think, would be a major mistake and would send a dangerous message to the taxpayer that we continue opportunities to re-invest their money into where they want to see it and that is in basic city services.

Councilman Jackson: I don’t maybe Councilman Gibson may be referring to other Councilmen, but I certainly know that I am not afraid Councilman Gibson, by that. My concern was for Amendment 1 had very little to do with the firemen and the LMA and all of those things, but I just didn’t agree that the things that were in them in Amendment No. 1.

I’d asked a few weeks ago for some kind of quantifable reason for putting $770,000 into Overlay and I asked whether or not it was arbitrary and I’ve not to date, got a satisfactory answer with regards to whether or not there was specific work put into those numbers and those numbers met some specific unfunded needs or if in fact they were arbitrary. At our last meeting or on our last discussion with reference to it, it ended up being relatively arbitrary.

I don’t disagree with the different needs that we have, but of course the whole idea of municipal government is unlimited needs and limited resources, so we have to in fact, prioritize. I don’t think that anybody on this Council will be derelict for choosing those things that they think to be priorities.

Now, I appreciate and understand the fact that, you’ve decided what you think through your amendment is the priority. No problem with. I don’t have to agree with it and I do not in this case, agree with it because I see it as relatively arbitrary.

If in fact it was a No. 1. priority to get the streets and to do things that were infrastructure, I would support an amendment that put all the money into that category. We have money that adds another $100,000 on top of the Councilman Lester’s–the Neighborhood Investment Program and then the $126,000 and then we’ve got some $250,000. Is that $250,000 a number that the Chief arrived? Mr. Dark, do you know what the current training budget for the Police is right now?

And, I don’t know if Councilman Gibson or Lester, whoever brought the number forward, maybe could suggest what that $250 number was based on, maybe it was some particular kind of training that cost that particular amount of money. My point was, it seemed like it was relatively arbitrary in nature and there was not enough documentation or anything to justify why we were in fact doing it. I don’t think anybody is suggested that they are bad ideas because all of them are good ideas, but when you have unlimited needs and limited resources, then it is not a easy process. I mean, you’ve got to massage your way through to get to some kind of disposition.

I’m not prepared to support Amendment No. 1 simply because none of those things have been discussed and I wanted to see if the Police, I guess the Police Chief is not here, but I don’t know if he had any input in the $250 number or we were just saying pump their budget by $250 because we know it will buy ‘x’ amount of dollars of training; maybe, somebody can speak to that because other than that it stills become relative arbitrary.

Mr. Dark: To answer your question, this would be a much larger piece of the Police budget than they use currently for training. What I would point out is it really doesn’t matter whether the amount is something choosen by the Police Chief. My understanding is he is trying to get as much of this as possible at almost no charge from the U. S. Department of Justice. But unless you could sign a contract with a training firm by December 31^st, it wouldn’t make any difference if you appropriate this or not, it goes back into the fund ‘cause you won’t spent it.

I guess what you tried to tell ya’ll a couple of times, is a number of these things are 2004 budget decisions. I’d also like to address Mr. Gibson’s question. I am pleased to hear that we won on the Fire thing at least in the first round, I hope it stays that way. Understand, we still have a million and half in the police liability. We’ve not sued the police fund, yet. It is my understanding we are, but because that one is not there, it is going to be our recommendation in all likelihood that you take the Pirates money, which happens to be almost exactly what our annual additional liability is for the Police fund and at least put it away until we know whether we are going to have to pay it or not. We think that is prudent and we still, notwithstanding anything else, we would ask you to support Amendment 3 and not the others.

Councilman Jackson: Is it correct Mr. Chairman then that based on what Mr. Dark was saying, if I understand correct, what his deal was about, if we were to pass it today, then we would have to sign contracts and get it done because prior to December 31^st because after December 31^st the money would have to be reappropriated which basically means we would have to do another ordinance, it would have to lay over 2 weeks and then do it then as a part of the 2004 budget as opposed to the 2003 budget, is that correct?

Councilman Walford: That is my understanding from Mr. Dark.

Mr. Dark: anything that you don’t sign, a contract, in case of overlay change order, that one is easy it could be done because there is an existing contract, but the others would be things that probably could not be signed by the end of the year.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chair. Point. . .

Councilman Jackson: I just would again, encourage the Council because I don’t think in the matter of the next 5 weeks or whatever, we are going to do anything that quickly that is going to make a huge difference that we couldn’t do it out of the 2004 budget. The money doesn’t disappear and I’m sure that the spirit of the people who’ve engineered these amendments, that won’t disappear either so, Mr. Chairman I’d like to call for the question. [Motion seconded by Councilman Green and denied by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Green and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilman Lester, Gibson, and Hogan. 3.]

Councilman Green: I just simply wanted to say, 1. that Councilman Gibson was talking about we were acting dangerous if we don’t do this. As I said before, 1. when this money came about I was on the Council. I was against giving it away at that time and I just happen to be here, since we got it back.

2. As I said some time ago, I’ve reached a limit that other folk always got to make the decisions for me. As far as District F, District F will be well taken care of and if in fact when it comes to a point that I need some help, then I will seek that help. Possibly if I was fighting for this overlay and the way that I see it, it gives contractors an opportunity to make a lot of money. If I was doing that, then I would possibly be. . . but since I am not in that position then I am not doing it then I probably won’t.

But I just think that we all have opinions. In fact, to be an expert all you have got to do is be 50 miles out of town and you can have an opinion and you can become an expert, but I just think that if in fact we pass Amendment No. 1 then we will be acting dangerously.

So, I just ask for your support on No. 3 and again, I would like to make a public announcement: that as far as District F is concerned, I was elected to serve and to take care of them and up to this point, I’ve done a fairly good job. Whenever I need some help, I will seek that help but until then, I would like to at least make some decisions of my own.

Councilman Hogan: As Councilman Green just stated, this originally was Riverfront Development money so, I believe it would be, it would make sense for us to want to put it back into the neighborhoods.

I think we have an unique opportunity here to use these funds for special needs in our neighborhoods. I believe we could all make a compromise on this because we have unique needs in our districts and there are certain things that we want to get accomplished and as happened in the last budget process, we brought out amendments to the table and everybody but Councilman Green got their shot down, but—you got your drug camera there (Councilman Green: I got shot later.) I hope the camera didn’t get shot. But anyway, I think this gives us a very special opportunity that we wouldn’t never have otherwise to meet some of the needs in our individual districts and I’d like for us to, I think we can make a compromise on this.

I wouldn’t be opposed to putting some of the money into the Retained Risk, a portion of it, however I do believe some of those needs there in Retained Risk and that have been talked about today, are always going to be with us. They are always going to be there, just like we are always going to have needs in our neighborhoods. And we do have, Mr. Dark, currently we have roughly $10 million dollars in the Retained Risk, is that correct?

Mr. Dark: That is what is in the budget for ‘04 as it was currently set up.

Councilman Hogan: I would like to see us come back to the table and bring with us, a list of needs from our district relative to overlays, sidewalk repairs, helping our neighborhood associations. I’m trying to gather some funds for economic development rally. It is a tough time of the year in this economy to be raising funds for that. I would like to use part of the funds for this rally that I’m trying to do at the first of the year; and so, I am going to be opposed to this today, this Amendment No. 1. Not that I’m opposed to some of the ideas within the amendment, but I think we need to fine-tune this and I believe we can come back to the table with something that is going to be a win-win for everyone in each of their own respective districts.

Councilman Walford: I can respect what Mr. Gibson is trying to do. I understand it, but I’m hearing what Councilman Hogan and Councilman Jackson are saying and I am looking out in th audience and I see my good friend, Mr. Joe Willis and I’m not sure Mr. Willis thinks, I don’t know because we haven’t had a chance to talk about what we need in the District. I don’t know that he agrees with asphalt overlay, that that is going to do the most good.

I look back there and I see Mr. Bowie and last night in our budget meeting, we saw what some needs are for Code Enforcement that can make a real impact, probably the biggest impact in my district and Councilman Lester’s. So, I’m not sure that $770,000 dollars worth of asphalt overlay is the best way to go. I was a great proponent of using $70,000 to supplement the education and the tuition assistance, but now I know that is in the new budget. So, I think the idea that has been brought up that we staff these for our own districts, we look at what our needs are, I don’t know that I need 1/7 of $770,000 or $110,000 worth of asphalt overlay. I don’t know that that is going to be the best impact on my district if we spend all of this money. And what I want to do is what will provide the most for my district, that’s what I am committed to do like the other gentleman are saying.

At this time I am going to vote ‘no’ to this amendment. I think it provides this Council the best opportunity to work together and decide how we would spend some money and what percentage we might leave in Retained Risk, and yet what we can do to benefit our districts and I want to provide the maximum benefit to my district. I commend Mr. Gibson for what he has studied, what he has done. I know he supports asphalt overlay is a big thing, I am just not sure that’s the most benefit for my district at this time.

Councilman Jackson: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think I have the answer to the question that I’d asked, my second question, I never had an answer to the Chief of Police has arrived and I just wanted to make that public that I’d asked a question with reference to what was in this and I don’t want to debate it, I just wanted to get the answer.

Councilman Carmody: Could I ask the Chief to come forward. I believe that you’d come in a little bit late to the meeting, but Councilman Jackson had asked a question about the amount of funding that the department had for sensitivity training, I believe it was. Do you know that off the top of your head?

Chief Campbell: Are you talking about in the budget for this year or are you talking about the money that we are talking about spending here?

Councilman Carmody: I think we are talking about the budget for this year. I’m sorry, we are talking about. . . .

Councilman Walford: You can defer it.

Councilman Carmody: I will defer to Mr. Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: Chief, will you tell us, I asked the Chief so that it wouldn’t be a secret, about the same question I asked us now, did he come up with the $250,000 or was that a number we came up with and Chief, your answer was?

Chief Campbell: In regards to diversity training, I don’t know which $250,000.

Councilman Jackson: No, it was an amendment to an ordinance. There was $250,000 said that we could put in the budget for the police for sensitivity training.

Chief Campbell: For diversity training. To answer your question in regards to diversity training. What we have in place, diversity training is not going to cost the Shreveport Police Department anything this year. We’ve been working hand-in-hand with the Justice Department and they will be in here the first week of December to train our people and also to train, to Train the Trainers is what we call it and that diversity training that we get will then be taught to the rest of the department during the 2004 re-training.

Councilman Jackson: So it is going to cost us, how much?

Chief Campbell: It is not going to cost us anything.

Councilman Jackson: That is less than $250,000 is what I was trying to say.

Councilman Walford: Substantial.

Councilman Jackson: We have that and this amendment, I guess, Councilman Gibson as the sponsor of that particular amendment, this amendment then technically as it is written on its face, based on what the Chief has said, would need to be re-done because they don’t even need $250,000 [Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I got a question of the Chief. ] of these funds in the General Fund Police budget to provide for sensitivity and interpersonal training due to the diversity of the City’s population. It would seem to me Mr. Chairman that would make this amendment give them $250,000 that they don’t really need based on what the Chief is saying.

Councilman Gibson: First of all lets not muddy the water, here. That is for both interpersonal training and other continuing ed along with diversity training. We are not just doing diversity training. You’ve got needs out there for interpersonal skills training which is on-going and a variety of other things.

Again, the monies were put in there that was triggered out of the Hudspeth shooting in the fact that we spent hours debating up here that there is not enough resources in the Police Department, correct, in terms of on-going training for police officers. Is that correct, Chief?

Chief Campbell: That would be correct, yes.

Councilman Gibson: Just to be clear for my Council colleagues up here, this was an opportunity to give this Chief some addition monies to go over the call of duty because we have heard people stand at that podium day in and day out during meetings talking about the fact that they feel like that we need to help this Police Department get more resources for additional training. In any profession, there is always a need for additional help in that endeavor and that is what the spirit of this particular piece of legislation was.

In addition, it is obvious that we are going to muddy the water on this thing also in terms of this budget amendment in the fact that to say that we are not going to spend it by December 31^st. That happens every single year, year in and year out, if we don’t spend money, we could always amend for 2004.

The other point I’d like to make is, to continue to put money in Retained Risk knowing that we have needs out there. Yeah, I agree with every one of my colleagues. We’ve had at least four weeks now that list could have been come up with in terms of what you want to have happened, but the fact is the money could have been spent or can be spent right now on infrastructure improvements and I’ll be more than happy to work with Council and the Administration to have this money earmarked for infrastructure improvements, whether it be sidewalks, whether it be whatever you want but this is a unique opportunity to take advantage of that.

But to say that $250,000 was specifically going to go for diversity training, is not an accurate statement because it is even put in the amendment that it is for both diversity training and interpersonal skill training which obviously, again, this was triggered based on what we went through in an exercise in the unfortunate situation that took place with Marquise Hudspeth and some of the other things that have been identified with the U. S. Justice Department coming down here saying that obviously training is a key component in everything that we do.

So, I just want to clarify the record and also again state that it is obvious how people are going to vote on this thing. I just hope that we are not sending a dangerous message. And, I would hope that we would come back, if this money ends up going where the Administration wants it to go right now and put another million-five into Retained Risk which again, it seems like we pay a lot of attorneys over almost $9 million dollars over the last four or five years. Are we in the business of paying attorneys or are we in the business of putting the money in the neighborhoods and I guess that is the bottom line of what the spirit of this amendment is all about.

And if we could come back and re-visit it by postponing, I would be very interested to hear from the colleagues of where you would like to spend the money, but it is not an attempt on my part to dictate where it is. We know we have $2 million dollars worth of unfunded needs in asphalt overlay, one of the biggest unfunded needs right now, and that is where the attempt was to put that in to start knocking down. You have, each one of my colleagues have a list in front of you of what those unfunded needs are in asphalt overlay, so to tell me or tell the audience that you don’t know whether it can be spent there, you have that list. And that was the spirit and that is the way I wanted to present it and I hope that is the way it was taken and I will defer and I’ll like to call the question at this point and time. [Motion seconded by Councilman Green and approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: Councilman Lester. 1.]

Amendment No. 1. denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilman Walford, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 4. Ayes: Councilman Lester, Carmody, and Gibson. 3.

Amendment No. 2 Councilman Gibson [not considered].

Amendment No. 3 Councilman Green:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Paragraph 1. Estimated Receipts:

Increase Miscellaneous Revenues by $1,437,100 and the total by a like amount.

In Paragraph 2. Appropriations:

Increase Liability Reserves by $1,437,100 and the total by a like amount.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green for adoption of Amendment No. 3. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 5. Nays: Councilman Carmody and Gibson. 2.

Councilman Walford: It nullifies No. 2?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, No. 2 would be inconsistent if you would vote.

Councilman Lester: Doesn’t this invalidate No. 155 in terms of, in other words to the extent that we voted for Amendment No. 3, does that not make Amendment No. 156, mute?

Councilman Walford: That would be my thought because it takes away the money.

Mr. Thompson: That is correct.

Councilman Walford: So what would be our proper action, Mr. Thompson?

Mr. Thompson: Well, first would be to adopt 155, I mean, if you want to do that.

Councilman Walford: As amended?

Mr. Thompson: As amended.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Green for adoption of the ordinance as amended. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 5. Nays: Councilman Carmody and Gibson. 2.

2. Ordinance No. 156 of 2003 by Councilman Jackson: An ordinance amending the 2003 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on October 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 Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to withdraw the ordinance. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

3. Ordinance No. 179 of 2003: An ordinance amending the 2003 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on October 28, 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 Lester to postpone the ordinance until the December 9, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

4. Ordinance No. 180 of 2003: An ordinance amending the 2003 budget for the Fleet Services Internal Service Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on October 28, 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 Lester to postpone the ordinance until the December 9, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

5. Ordinance No. 183 of 2003: An ordinance authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to sell the improvements only on the lots described herein located on Meriwether Road, as surplus property and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on October 28, 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 Hogan, seconded by Councilman Green adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Having passed first reading on November 11, 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 Jackson, seconded by Councilman Carmody to postpone Ordinance Nos. 190 through 195 until the December 9, 2003 meeting. Motion adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None

6. Ordinance No. 190 of 2003: An ordinance amending the 2003 budget for the General Fund Budget and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

7. Ordinance No. 191 of 2003 by Councilman Gibson: An ordinance amending the 2003 Capital Improvements Budget and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

8. Ordinance No. 192 of 2003: An ordinance amending Chapter 42 and Chapter 86 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport relative to itinerant vendor’s licenses and occupational license taxes and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

9. Ordinance No. 193 of 2003: TWENTY FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ORDINANCE: A supplemental Ordinance Amending and Supplementing Resolution No. 131 of 1984 (The "General Bond Resolution") adopted on June 12, 1984, as amended; providing for the issuance of $13,565,000 principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2003 Refunding Series C, of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, pursuant to the General Bond Resolution; approving and confirming the sale of such bonds; prescribing the form, fixing the details and providing for the payment of principal of and interest on such bonds and the application of the proceeds thereof for refunding certain bonds issued for the purpose of constructing and acquiring extensions and improvements to the City's combined waterworks plant and system and sewer plant and system (the "System") of the City; making application to the State Bond Commission; and providing for other matters in connection therewith.

10. Ordinance No. 194 of 2003: An ordinance authorizing the Purchasing Agent to dispose of surplus real properties and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

11. Ordinance No. 195 of 2003: An ordinance declaring adjudicated properties to be surplus and to authorize the Mayor of the City to sell the City of Shreveport’s tax interest in certain surplus adjudicated properties, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

The adopted Ordinances as amended follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 155 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2003 BUDGET FOR THE RETAINED RISK INTERNAL SERVICE FUND AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: Councilman Theron Jackson

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 budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund, to allocate funds received from the Pirates organization.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 165 of 2002, the 2003 budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund, be amended as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Miscellaneous Revenues by $1,437,100.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Liability Reserves by $1,437,100.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 165 of 2002 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 183 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SHREVEPORT AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE IMPROVEMENTS ONLY ON THE LOTS DESCRIBED HEREIN LOCATED ON MERIWETHER ROAD, AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the Shreveport Airport Authority, acquired property under the Airport Authority Noise Mitigation Program; and

WHEREAS, the property was declared surplus property by the Airport Authority commission; and

WHEREAS, the property that resides on this lot must be removed with the stipulation that the lot be returned to green space; and

WHEREAS, Section 18-33 of the Shreveport Code of Ordinances provides that the City Council has exclusive jurisdiction and authority to authorize alienation of immovable property owned by the Shreveport Airport Authority; and

WHEREAS, to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and grant assurances, the Airport Authority must be compensated from the sale of such property and the funds must be used for airport purposes

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Shreveport Airport Authority is hereby authorized to solicit sealed bids, with the assistance of the Purchasing Agent, to sell to the highest bidder the improvements only, located on each of the following described parcels of real property, each parcel of property and the improvements located thereon are specifically described as follows:

2840 Meriwether, bearing assessor’s geographic #171433-000-0034; a 10 acre tract of land in the NW 1/4 of Section 33 Township 33, Range 14, City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana;

3 bedroom/1.5 bath - 1,806 s/f; fence is an in ground S./P Hse.

3060 Meriwether, bearing assessor’s geographic #171433-0-0085; undivided one-half

(½) of their undivided one-half (½) interest in 9.00 acres - M/L-West 24.2 acres of the

NW/4 of Section 33 (17-14) Less the East 330 feet thereof and Less South 25 feet for

Road and less Road R/W, City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana

3 Bedroom/1 bath - 1806 s/f; no fencing

2610 Meriwether Road, bearing assessor’s geographic #171433-010-0003; Lot 3,

Hargis Subdivision, Caddo Parish, Louisiana

3 Bedroom/1 bath - 2,379 s/f; 350 linear feet of 4' cyclone fence

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Shreveport Airport Authority and the City reserve the right to reject the offer to sell this property.

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

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

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

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Resolution No. 88 of 2003: Amending Sections 1.8 and 1.11 of the Rules of Procedure of the City Council (Public Comments). (A/Lester) (Tabled on June 24)

2. Ordinance No. 40 of 2003: Changing the names of the Shreveport Blanchard Road from the Roy Road to North Hearne Avenue, and of Ford Street from North Hearne Avenue to Pete Harris Drive, and of Caddo Street from Pete Harris Drive to the Clyde Fant Parkway to Hilry Huckaby III Avenue. (A/Lester) Tabled *As Amended on July 8 - *Changing the name of the Shreveport Blanchard Road from the Roy Road to North Hearne to Hilry Huckaby III Avenue.)

3. Ordinance No. 80 of 2003: Amending the 2003 Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund Budget (disparity study). (G/Jackson) (Tabled on July 8)

4. Ordinance No. 152 of 2003: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport by adding Article VIII., Division 1 and Division 2 relative to disposal of public property and disposal of adjudicated property and otherwise providing with respect thereto.(A/Lester) (Tabled on Nov. 11)

5. 2004 Budget Ordinances (to be adopted by Dec. 15):

157 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Downtown Development District.

158 Adopting the 2004 General Fund budget.

159 Adopting the 2004 Capital Improvements budget.

160 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Water and Sewerage Enterprise Fund.

161 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Airports Enterprise Fund.

162 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund budget.

163 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Golf Enterprise Fund.

164 Adopting the 2004 Metropolitan Planning Commission's Special Revenue fund.

165 Adopting the 2004 budget funding contractual services provided to SporTran by the Metro Management Associates, Inc.

166 Adopting the 2004 Debt Service fund budget.

167 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue fund

168 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue fund.

169 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue fund.

170 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Fleet Services Internal Service fund.

171 Adopting the 2004 budget for S’port Redevelopment Agency Special Revenue Fund.

172 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Environmental Grants Special Revenue Fund.

173 Adopting the 2004 budget for Downtown Parking Enterprise Fund.

174 Adopting the 2004 budget for the Downtown Entertainment Economic Development District Special Revenue Fund.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Property Standards Board Appeal: 264 E. 71^st Street, Lot 1252. [Board Decision Upheld]

2. Property Standards Board Appeal: 308 Robinson Pl. [Board Decision Upheld]

3. Election of City Council Officers: Chairman and Vice-Chairman (effective on Nov. 26).

1. The floor was opened for nominations for Chairman of the Council.

Councilman Jackson nominated Councilman Thomas Carmody as Chairman, seconded by Councilman Green. There were no further nominations and the nominations were closed. Nomination approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Did not cast a vote: Councilman Gibson. 1.

Councilman Walford: Councilman Gibson, did you vote?

Councilman Gibson: No.

Councilman Walford: I believe if you are in the Chambers you are required to vote.

Councilman Gibson: I will step out because no one talked to me about that.

Councilman Jackson: Talk to you about voting?

Councilman Gibson: No, about the election.

Councilman Jackson: It was on the agenda.

2. The floor was opened for nominations for Vice-Chairman of the Council.

Councilman Green nominated Councilman Jackson as Vice-Chairman, seconded by Councilman Carmody. There were no further nominations and the nominations were closed. Nomination approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Did not cast a vote: Councilman Gibson. 1.

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES. None.

CLERK’S REPORT:

1. CA-10-03: Request to close and abandon a portion of Timber Knoll Dr. and all of Timber Oak Dr. together with adjacent utilities located south of Wonderland Dr. in the Timber Knoll Sub’d. (Assurance Realty - appealing portion of the decision to deny closure of Timber Oak Dr. and Jon and Shannon Bowlin - appealing access to property)

2. Appeal: C-57-03, Phillip Scroggins, 2011 Jewella Ave., MPC Approval in a B-2 District, used automobile sales. (G/Jackson)

Councilman Jackson: Do we take action on any of these the first time that it is on here today, or what is the . . . .

Mr. Thompson: No.

Councilman Jackson: So this will be on the agenda, for next time?

Mr. Thompson: It will be on, on the C-10-03, close and abandon, yeah, for the next time you can vote on both of those ordinances.

3. Appeal not timely filed -- Property Standards Board Appeal: 3535 Penick St.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Fred Johns, has filed out a form to speak. He is the person who appealed in this matter. I asked him to be here for 3 o’clock, I don’t know that he was here for 3 o’clock. When I talked to him this morning, he said he thought he had five business days to appeal as opposed to five days and I think that would be, based on what he told me this morning, his defense for not appealing on time.

Councilman Walford: We’ll have him speak under Public Comments when we resolve ourselves into the Committee.

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 4:20 p.m.

/s/Monty Walford, Chairman

/s/Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council