COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

DECEMBER 9, 2003

The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, was called to order by Chairman Thomas Carmody at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 9, 2003, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Councilman Jackson 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 Walford, seconded by Councilman Green to approve the Administrative Conference Summary Minutes of November 19, 2003 and the Council Meeting Minutes of November 21, 2003. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Green and Jackson. 7. Absent:

Awards, Recognition of Distinguished Guests, and Communications of the Mayor which are required by law.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Dark, I see that we are still looking for our Mayor and CAO.

Mr. Dark: I’m not aware that they have any, but it might be wise to come back to them at some point.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you sir. I do believe that Councilman Jackson has a distinguished guest today.

Councilman Green: I do.

Councilman Carmody: Oh, excuse me sir. Okay. It’s actually going to be Councilman Green.

Councilman Green: I have some Distinguished Guests, the Pastor Police. They are here present with us today and I just wanted to them to be recognized and also a spokesman from the group to come and just give us a briefing on some of the things that they do. Would you all come. I believe Pastor Calvin Kimble is the head of that group and ask that he would come and those of you that’s present, would you all come. My Daddy is also the fellow with they yellow/gold tie on and the black suit and for those of you that’s wondering if that’s my daddy or not, I took color from my mama and that’s my Daddy and that’s Pastor Odell and Pastor Kimble. Pastor Kimble the floor is yours as to telling us what you all do. Thank you all for coming.

Pastor Kimble: Let me thank you Councilman Green for inviting us to the Council. We are the Police Pastors on Patrol. This is a organization that has been in action for three years. We’re going on our fourth year.

And some of the things that we do, one of the main things that we do is ride with police officers. We have at our discretion at whatever time we have, we ride at any three shifts. We get a chance to see what’s going on in our City and of course, we have an opportunity to see what a police officer does in the run of eight hours of a day. We’ve become very close, made good friends with many Police officers. We listen to them and we minister to them as well.

Out of this program, Police Pastor Program, we go and adopt schools. For instance, we’ve adopted Woodlawn High School. And some of our Pastors go over to the school and we walk around and meet the children and see whatever we can do to help keep that school in calm and we go out and read to children like at Lakeshore Drive. And out of this program, we have five chaplains, volunteer chaplains. And we make death notifications. We are called out. Each one of us are on call a month. I’m on call for this month and whenever there is a death where we need to make a death notification, we do that. We happen to have also Reverend Ernest James who is one of our Chaplains. Pastor Roy Davis, Dr. Spurlock, myself and Pastor Gregory Jones.

I’d just like to say to the Council and to Councilman Green. Shreveport Police Department has sent several of the chaplains to workshops. We went to San Antonio year before last. Reverend James and I this year were in Brownwood, Texas for a three day seminar on how to become very effective and professional chaplain for the Police Department and in that we learn by observing other Police Departments who have chaplains.

And one of our instructors said to us because we have five chaplains, we are called out at any time of night, day some of us have to respond. And one of the things we’re hoping that the chaplains can get a chaplain car because most Police Departments that have a chaplain, they provide transportation for them. We use our own cars and of course, because it’s volunteer service and we hope that, that will change.

But that’s what we do and we’re out here to do whatever we can to make our city a safe place to live and we certainly do appreciate what you Councilmen are doing and we thank you again Councilman Green for inviting us. For instance, we had two shootings out in the Mooretown area where I pastor, on the corner of Broadway and Hollywood. I made one of the calls, Pastor Gregory Jones made one of the calls which was on a Sunday night. I made the call last Wednesday of the gentleman that killed on the corner. And Councilman Green called a prayer vigil for Saturday at 9:00 and we had a lot of our citizens and Police Department along with these Pastors on Patrol. Councilman Jackson and also Councilman Hogan were there who prayed a very fervent prayer and we anticipated on being on that corner at 5:00 tomorrow evening. We’ve asked, Pastors from the pulpit have asked their members/citizens to join us on that corner, that we’re going to have another prayer vigil and we do hope to go all over this City with prayer vigils. We’re not gonna just cover Mooretown because we know the problem is not just a Mooretown problem, it’s a City problem. It’s all over our city. And as Pastors on Patrol, we’re going to do whatever we can along with the Councilmen who will work with us and the Police Department and citizens to pray that this killing, senseless killing would stop in our city and that our city can become calm and one of our slogans of the Police Pastor Program is that we pray for healing. Our city needs to continue to heal and that’s what we are about.

Councilman Green: Thank you Pastor Kimble. On your uniforms and whatever y’all do, who pays for those?

Pastor Kimble: We pay for them ourselves.

Councilman Green: Your own uniform and everything?

Pastor Kimble: Right.

Councilman Green: What about models? Have any other cities used this particular program as a model?

Pastor Kimble: Yes, there are several cities. I understand that there is a Police Department, I believe that’s in Orlando, Florida, Jacksonville, Florida. I went up to Tulsa Oklahoma, spent two days with the Police Department up there. As a matter of fact, we’ll be going to Tulsa on the 7^th of March. We’re going to spend three days there in a Chaplain Workshop. And of course, while we’re there, the Chaplains of Tulsa, Oklahoma Police Department want us to get with them and try to get their Police Pastor Program started in Tulsa; so, we have different cities catching on. I understand that Houston, Texas is also interested in this program.

Councilman Green: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to have a word of expression. I’m gonna ask my daddy to come and just say hello.

Pastor Green: Good evening, everybody

Bishop Maiden: Part of the Pastor Police Program, we do have also future goals for this particular auxiliary and that is to inform the citizens as to how they are to be and to respond when they are met by law enforcement. And that’s one of the things that I think we take for granted that people know just off the bat, what they should do when they are stopped by an officer.

I’ve already started a program in my church from the pamphlet from the NAACP, "The Law and You" and one of our future goals is to start with a grassroot, with our young, our youth in the city and targeting areas where we are having a high incidence with Police officers as well as citizens and to set up camps. Of course, its gonna take funding, its gonna take time, but these are our future goals to set up camps and also have some graduations. Having some role play, letting them see what it is to have to deal with someone who may have broken a law and hopefully, understanding. The Bible teaches us in all thy getting, get an understanding and this is really what we want to do. We’re here for the Police Officer, but we are also a liaison between the officers, the civil servants as well as the citizens. And what we want to do is ease the tension between the two and to help our city be what God would have it to be and what you all are striving for also; so, that’s one of the things.

We have no funding other than our personal commitment. And it is a conviction that we have and it’s a vision that was started by Lieutenant DeLaney along with Pastor Kimble and we appreciate so much for you all considering us in your budget.

Pastor James: Yes, I’m Earnest C. James, I pastor Bethesda Missionary Baptist Church located in the northwest section of Shreveport, but I reside in District D, the Cedar Grove area and the Honorable Mike Gibson is my Councilman.

I just want to add to what has already been said that we are a non-profit voluntary group and our goal is the enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement through education. We are currently in the process of implementing a program called "Improving Neighborhood Relations (IPR)". And the purpose of that is to teach, to train, and to touch those in our community.

We want to begin particularly with the Pastors and the Churches educating them on their role as it relates to community affairs and also to enhance the public relations with the citizens of Shreveport.

We are also involved in Project Safe Neighborhoods and most of you should have a resource guide here. We will be passing these out. In addition, we will be making public service announcements by way of the radio, television and the print media and we will be distributing thousands of gun locks. Our first targeted area is the area of Cedar Grove. And so what we’re doing is we’re asking for the support of this Council and the City at large to help us to do what we should be doing naturally.

I believe what the scripture says, because after all, I am a preacher first and I believe that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is the reproach of any people. And if we want a neighborhood, if we want a safe city, we need to partner, not protest, but partner with the City in making that possible.

Pastor Odell: To the Council, I’m Pastor Eddie Odell. And I’m in the what is called the Reisor area, but it’s still called the Shreveport area. And I’m certainly enhanced by the program that the Police Pastors are doing and what we want to do is help our young people come to grips. But, we cannot help our young people until we help some of our adults. Our adults need to come to grips as well. So, in our program what we want to do is get material out and teaching and training for adults as well as our young people to help our situation in our City that we can have a better and safer city for us to live in.

Councilman Green: Is the Chief present? Lieutenant DeLaney, did I see him come in? Lieutenant would you come up and just basically tell us how important this program is to the Department?

Lieutenant DeLaney: Let me just begin by saying good afternoon to the Council. There is not a whole lot I can say that hasn’t already been said. This is a volunteer program. We have a group of Pastors of different denomination who are willing to volunteer their time, not only to volunteer their time, but to make time to try to help mend this city, this community and to make it a better, safer place to live in. I often say there are two kinds of people. The person that volunteers and the person that don’t and we got a group of guys who are volunteering their time to try to make this city safer and a better place for everyone.

Councilman Carmody: The Chair does have a question for the Administration. I wanted to first acknowledge these gentlemen, I appreciate y’all coming. I see that there are actually 14 Pastors on the Patrol, we have 5 that are here with us today. They had mentioned Mr. Mayor regarding the ability to try to secure a car for the Pastor on Patrol and is there a possibility that we would have a surplus vehicle in our fleet that we might be able to make available to these Pastors?

Mayor Hightower: We can certainly look at that. I don’t know off the top of my head if we do or if we don’t.

Councilman Carmody: Sure if we could just look at that, there might be something that would of course assist them with their mission.

Councilman Green: I had one other guest, Mr. Sam Gilliam if he’s here. Thank you Mr. Gilliam. Would you just kinda bring us an update on the numbers and everything, give us an overview about the Convention Center, where we are with the - - -

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to Councilman Green, I think he’s probably asking some significant and some sound questions, but with reference to the agenda, I think on the Convention Report, we might be able to get something at that point.

Councilman Carmody: Yes sir Mr. Jackson, you might have actually moved out of recognition of Distinguished Guest and Communication by the Mayor which are required by law, I do know that the Mayor has come in and I plan to defer to him at this point.

Councilman Green: That’s fine.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Gilliam, if you’ll wait just a second please.

Councilman Green: Mr. Chair, Mr. Gilliam, just know that you are from my District and you are my Distinguished Guest. We’ll just get you a little bit later.

Councilman Carmody: He’ll be right back I’m sure. Mr. Mayor are there any communications from the Mayor today?

Mayor Hightower: No, Mr. Chairman.

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.

Councilman Carmody: I do believe at this time, maybe it might be appropriate if Councilman Green wanted to ask Mr. Gilliam to come up, but I would also like to mention that I have received a memo from the Administration that tomorrow morning at 10:00 will be the groundbreaking for the Convention Center Project and that will be at the corner of Spring and Caddo. Apparently there will be a tent set up between Market and Spring, where the Convention Center Parking Garage will be built; so. that will be at 10:00. Mr. Gilliam would you please come back up. Thank you sir for your patience.

Mr. Gilliam: Thank you sir.

Councilman Green: My Distinguished Guest, would you give us an overview on now.

Mr. Gilliam: The latest report coming from Yates Construction regarding Fair Share, Minority and Women involvement. I have to report to you is somewhat encouraging as it relates to the last report that I gave to you.

In fact as we look at it right now, actually $2.1 million is actually been submitted to Fair Share Clients in terms of purchase orders and that kind of thing is actually committed and that ranges over about four categories in terms of continuing purchases, and rentals, sprinkler systems, electrical gear and fixtures and mobilization efforts. And these were areas indeed we thought that we might actually maximize some Fair Share participation and we have to realize to that extent.

The overall percentage reported to us and we’re still verifying some of this point is 18.9% which is a far cry from the first report I gave to you about a month ago of 1.9%.

The other area we have would be commitments made, but the actual purchase orders have not actually been made. And that amounts to $9.6 million which ranges several areas in terms of delivery of structural steel, soil treatment, and other small divisions of tin purchases and of course drywall materials. And again, these were some of the areas initial areas, scopes that we thought we’d be able to maximize Fair Share, Minority and Women involvement also.

They have also given us a listing of some anticipated awards and this is the area that we are still substantiating making sure that indeed, this particular, these goods and services are actually going to be rendered by Fair Share Clients and these would be dealing with concrete, small auxiliary kinds of things such as entrance mats, et cetera, et cetera.

The last portion that we have would be actual subs. In other words, they are prime contractors that have already been contracted or committed by Yates and they subsequently have made commitments to sub-contract with other Fair Share clients. And these areas come in terms of demolition, roofing, and HVAC which again would be some of the areas---some of these are quite logical if you’re familiar with availability and capacity of Fair Share contractors and vendors, Minority and Women suppliers. And in that area, we come up with $406,000 dollars which as we said for a grand total, as I speak to you, committed,$12.4 million dollars at this point which is roughly about 18%. And, the job is not done. We’re still struggling and we’ll still be in there pitching to make sure that they get a fair share.

Councilman Green: Thank you Mr. Gilliam, in your visiting with Mr. Yates, I would ask that you would pass this on to him to give to Mr. Rosenblum. These are some excerpts of the Council Meeting whereas the promises that they made and I’d just like for this to be his Christmas present as a reminder of what they said they were going to do.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Gilliam, I heard you use several terms, you said ‘committed’, you said ‘anticipated’. When you say that the percentage of 18.9%, does that represent contracts that have been signed or does the 18.9% represent commitments?

Mr. Gilliam: No, it does not. The only portion of this that represents actual committed purchase orders would be the $2,188, 240.

Councilman Lester: And what percentage does that represent?

Mr. Gilliam: That’s roughly 3.3%.

Councilman Lester: So, actually today, we have 3.3% that we have verified that is actually going to happen, contract signed. But then you’re saying that Yates is committing to us and to you that 18.9% of the project will be with your Fair Share clients?

Mr. Gilliam: And most specifically committed to you and then us. We are going to try to be diligent in making sure that they face up to that commitment.

Councilman Lester: I just wanted to make sure, because I don’t want anyone to go away thinking that there is a commitment and contract are two different things. So, we just want to make sure where we are in terms of actual contracts because you know they say the road to you know where is paved with good intentions.

Motion by Councilman Gibson to suspend the Rules for a few minutes for a brief presentation between myself and Mike Strong on the Infrastructure Committee, seconded by Councilman Green and approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: Councilman Walford. 1.

Councilman Gibson: Just a brief overview and I’m gonna ask Mr. Strong to come forward while I’m discussing this to go over a couple of things for the Council. A couple of weeks ago, some committee minutes were distributed to you and I ask again today those committee minutes be distributed again.

This infrastructure committee was formed early this year. It was a just brief history on this thing. I am the Chairman of that Committee. Councilman Theron Jackson is on the committee along with Councilman Carmody. The purpose of that committee is to work in conjunction with the Administration to bring focus on the City’s overall infrastructure whether it be streets, drainage, sidewalk repair, water and sewer and a variety of other items that affect our quality of life in our community.

At our November 5^th Infrastructure Committee meeting, we discussed several items including problems with taste and odor of our treated water of which Mr. Strong had brought in the City’s chemist to talk about some of those things and I would- - -I think that the Committee was satisfied with the direction the City is going with that and are very pleased with some of the time investment.

The other item of which I want to underline and make it clear that the Committee Chair did not suggest or recommend any of these particular potential revenue sources and that’s what I’d like to ask Mr. Strong to talk about. One of our committee members did ask for some recommendations from the City Administration or the Public Works Director on how we might fill an $8-10million shortfall that—and let me be clear, this Administration has done and admirable job, but the fact being is this problem didn’t occur in this Administration, it has been probably going back at least two or three Administrations at least that we continue to run an $8-10 million dollar a year shortfall which over time builds up to where we’re in this particular issue where we’ve got a decaying overall infrastructure.

But Mr. Strong, I’d like if you could for the pleasure of the Council to kind of brief us on the items of which one of our Council Members had asked you for some potential revenue sources that this Council could consider, not proposed, not recommend, or anything, but just potential revenue sources in terms of how we address long term use for our continued shortfall in terms of investment in infrastructure.

Mr. Strong: And this was asked to be brought forward by Councilman Carmody of where we were to go through and look at potential sources, not a recommendation or anything of that sort. But I’ve put together basically eight items with a ninth and I think we added at the meeting as a potential also.

To go through them would be: a water rate increase, if you did that, looking at what 1% would do which would raise approximately $350,000 annually. Potential impact fee would be No. 2 for new construction depending on how that was structured, you’d be looking at $3 million dollars that would go into the system upgrades for what the impact of that new construction would bring onto. No. 3 would be an infrastructure fee itself which could be a flat rate fee of $10. If you did that, $10 on every water bill, that would raise approximately $7.5million annually. No. 4 was a garbage fee, which again a $10 a month fee for residential with $100 a month fee for commercial would again raise approximately $7.5million dollars annually. City income tax is a potential. The institution of the City income tax could be structured to generate virtually any amount that you want it to. Of course, that would take State action before anything with that could be done. Sales tax increase, for every 1% of sales tax increase would generate approximately $29 million dollars annually. Current tax rate is 8.6% and the City’s portion being 2.7% of that. Also there was No. 7 was the property tax increase which was 1 milage of property tax increase would generate approximately $947thousand which is the cost of $100,000 assessed property, would be $10 annually. Hotel/Motel occupancy tax increase - 1% increase in the hotel/motel occupancy would generate about $730,000 annually. The current tax rate is 4.5 % which the City receives .75% of that. The last one that we talked about, but still do not have any figures is the potential of a transfer fee, which would be levied on any property that would be changing hands within the City and do not have any kind of potential revenue on that but that was kinda what we were asked to do and that’s what we brought forth.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Strong, I appreciate that. Again, as I understand it, in terms of needs City-wide on infrastructure, whether it be water and sewer repairs and things of that nature, we’re in the neighborhood of $700 million dollars give or take some money, depending on what we’ve invested over the last couple of years, but still, it’s a significant number, long term to get us up to speed and where we need to be as a community.

But as Chairman, I do appreciate my colleagues’ involvement in this committee because I think its been a healthy exercise for the committee, but I unequivocally want to state for the record that these were discussions, these were suggestions by Public Works based on your experience and your professional involvement in these things that in no way, this City Councilman is in favor of any fee increases or any tax increase regarding this. That in my opinion, and again, this is just one City Councilman in District D, I’m still not convinced that us as a City and I think that’s one of the reasons why this committee was put together, not convinced that the tax dollars that are currently being generated, that we are not devoting more monies into infrastructure to address some of the things that you’ve brought before this Council in prior meetings and also in your expertise in bringing these potential revenue sources.

But I do appreciate that professionalism and that expertise that you brought to our committee because I think that it has served our committee’s insight and education on what the magnitude of a problem that we have in the city right now and it’s going to take, not just short term but long term solutions to make and change this particular problem that’s in front of us and I do appreciate that Mr. Strong.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Strong, I do want to again, tell you how much I appreciate you getting together those recommendations. As you recall, I kinda put your parameters such that it was only those departments that were involved within the Department of Operational Services and therefore those recommendations came out of the actual departments that you have oversight over. And as most of the Council Members know, I’m not sure that the public is aware that we previously had a Water and Sewerage Legislative Oversight Committee of which I served as Chairman and when Councilman Gibson came forward with the Infrastructure Committee, it just seemed to dovetail into the fact that we were all trying to find resources to address the deferred maintenance that the City needs to be taking care of.

And again, I appreciate your recommendations coming from and giving us at least the ability to know what potential options are out there in order to try to fill that need because as we’re all aware today, especially at a budget finalization here, that there is never enough money to go around to meet all the needs that we have. So we have to prioritize and the only way that we can do that is to have the most accurate information that can possibly be brought to this body; so, again, I appreciate your help.

Mayor Hightower: I’d like to make a comment. I’ve heard a couple of times in this conversation today, the words suggestion or recommend. Let me make it perfectly clear that this Administration, Mr. Strong did not recommend or suggest any tax increases, any fee proposals, any of those things.

I know early on in a budget session, Councilman Gibson had addressed the infrastructure shortfall that we have in the City after DOS did their study, saying that we are underfunded about $8million in construction projects that we would like to get done. We also know that we’re probably hundreds of millions under funded in Water and Sewer. And I certainly appreciate the fact that the Water and Sewer Committee and the Infrastructure Committee are taking a look at what we ought to do and how we ought to prioritize and help DOS and the City Council do that.

But at no time, did Mr. Strong suggest or recommend any fee increases, any of those type things. Like I say, that first came up from Councilman Gibson when we were talking at budget committee and then I think at the meeting that Councilman Gibson did not come to or was out of the Chamber or something, you brought that forward, publicly. But I know it was the second time, that I had personally heard it. But again, I wanted to be sure that this Administration does not believe that fee increases are the way to tackle our infrastructure program shortfalls.

Bond issues are the way to do that. A vote of the people is the way to do that and not fees imposed by either this Administration or the City Council for that matter. We ought to go to the voters, that’s the way it’s typically done and that’s the way it’s always been done when we start talking about concrete and asphalt and I don’t think that we ought to be on any sort of path to change that at this point.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I appreciate you clarifying that and again maybe I used the wrong term, but what I had asked for you to do was to look at what the ability for potential revenue might be in order to fill that gap. Again, I did not take those as your recommendations to implement and I can guarantee you that I’m sure, just like every other Council Member, this particular Council Member has received a lot input from people having read the newspaper. And most everyone to a tee had said that they did not care to pay any additional fees or part of their income to the City of Shreveport to fill these gaps; so, I appreciate that clarification Mayor.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Strong and I hate that things, cause those of us that serve on Infrastructure Committee, I think have a clear understanding of where we went but what happened in that meeting. I’m sorry that it got kinda messed up, but I would like to say and I think that the Administration and others will also agree that it is something, that something’s gotta be done about. And no matter where you live, you get what you pay for and if we allow our infrastructure to continue, to consistently and steadily erode, then we’re going to have some major problems somewhere and that’s gonna cost somebody something.

Now, while I know nobody recommended any fee increases or any of those kinds of things, there needs to be some serious and significant talk on the table like yesterday about what in fact we do. And I just think that we can’t pass this on to the next Administration and pass this on to the next City Council. It may not be a popular thing to do. And it may get folks un-elected (if you will), but I think the responsibility that we have far outweighs the obsession for significance, the need for popularity and those other things because at the end of the day, if we don’t do what we need to do, even as unpopular as it may be, it may not be fees, it may be a bond issue, whatever the case, we just need to do something now.

Now whatever it may be, I just want to encourage this Administration as well as this City Council to not look for places to place who said what and those kinds of things, but to know that all of us are going to in the long term suffer if we don’t address this problem right away and it cost money to address it. And somebody is going to have to pay more or somebody is going to have to do without, something is gonna have to happen, because there is no magical money tree where we can go and get the money. It takes money to solve some of these problems and we’re going to have to find a way to get it done. And nobody wants to raise taxes or increase fees, but at the end of the day, we all get what we pay for and we can’t afford to continue to have eroding infrastructure or this entire City will suffer as a result of it.

So, I just wanted you to know why we may get through this meeting today and everybody will be okay, and they’re gonna have to soon be a conversation about something that needs to be done for our infrastructure or it threatens all our quality of life.

Councilman Carmody: And one last thought. I think the majority of my request came out of the fact that we realize that the bonding capacity of the City is such that it will be beyond our present terms as well as the Administration’s before the bonding capacity opens up to apply toward this need and so, therefore that was the request that did come from this Councilman to ask about what potentially could we do in order to find some additional revenue.

And so, granted bonds and placing these items before the public for their consideration is certainly the way to go, but just within the time frame and the amount of the debt that the City owes, we do realize as elected officials that we’re not going to have any bonding capacity during this term; so, again, I appreciate your help and continue your good work, Sir.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make one other point. You’re correct when you say bonding capacity in the thought process that we would not have to raise taxes. Now we could raise taxes and still sell bonds. That’s not something that we’ve chosen to do in this Administration and the last one either, and I certainly appreciate your help on that. But we are spending a ton of money in the course of 2004, we’ll put $50-60million into infrastructure. So, I don’t want anybody in the general public to think that we’re not fixing streets or repairing water and sewer lines or patching potholes or fixing sidewalks or doing any of those things. We’re spending a tremendous amount of money in infrastructure. We’re also spending a tremendous amount of money in the Police Department you know. And I’d like to have more officers on the street as most of you would. And we’re spending a bunch of money in the Fire Department as well, but it would be great to have another station so that we could get people an ambulance quicker than we’re able to get it to ‘em now. But as each and every one of you know over the past two years and over the past several months in particular, it’s a balancing act. We know we’ve only got a finite amount of money and we’ve got to provide services in globo for the City. So it is a tough balancing act and if we fund the entire Police Department the way we ought to fund it, then we probably wouldn’t have, you know, a Fire Department.

So again, I don’t want the general public to think we’re ignoring anything; that is not happening. I think we’ve got a first class Police Department. We’ve certainly got a Class I rated Fire Department and I think that DOS is doing a good job keeping up our infrastructure as well, both on the water and sewer side and on the streets and drainage side. So you know, we’re continuing to do that and again we have a balancing act here and with your help, we believe we’ve put together a good budget. A budget that will get us through 2004 and take care of most of our major problems and you know as well as I do, if we were to fund $8million in infrastructure repair for 2004 in addition to the $50-60million that we already have funded, something else would happen, there’d be another dollar added onto the top of it and we would never catch up. So, we’ve just got to continue to look and struggle and prioritize and get things done as we can afford to get ‘em done, just as we do in every other department.

Councilman Green: I just wanted to say if you look on your docket and you won’t have the amendment for the $10,000 for the Pastor Police. And the reason you won’t have that amendment is because I talked to the Chief and asked him what were some needs and he basically got those needs and in turn discussed those needs with the Mayor and in discussing them with the Mayor, the Mayor said, we didn’t have to go through an amendment, that this program was very important, that we would find the money otherwise and we’ve already found the money otherwise, the $10,000. So, therefore we won’t have to have an amendment. So, if anybody you all are to thank at this time, thank the Mayor for his wise decision of finding the money.

And also I’d like to thank our Chairman for asking to find a Chaplain’s car that’s basically in our fleet already. And I just kinda wanted to make that publicly know as to what transpired after talking to the Chief, and the Chief talking to the Mayor and I talking to the Mayor, then money has been made available and I just wanted to publicly say that.

Public Hearing: None.

Confirmations and/or Appointments: None.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda: Mr. Thompson: There is one document by Mr. Lester that I discussed yesterday. It was supposed to be on the agenda but we did not get it on. It was a clerical error and he still want’s to add that to the agenda. It’s a resolution authorizing the waiver of engineering fees.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, I’ve had an opportunity - - - we discussed this item at yesterday’s work session and I got a commitment from the Administration, from the Mayor to see if we can in fact do something to help what I think is a very viable important economic development in building housing project in my District. And I’ve got a commitment from the Administration that they are going to do everything that they can do within the confines of the law to help facilitate this development; so, based upon that commitment, I’m asking that we withdraw that particular item at this time.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Mr. Lester, I believe that we’re not going to add it then- - -

Mr. Thompson: Then no action it necessary.

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

1. Resolution 194 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the City of Shreveport, Louisiana and Caddo Parish Fire District Number Nine and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Public Comments.

Councilman Carmody: I have ten requests to speak at this time. If it is agreeable with the Council, I will go ahead and take them in the order in which they were received, but will try to group those that are here to speak on the same item so that we can kinda keep our thoughts together.

Ruth Lester, Assurance Realty (4814 Greenwood Road): I’m here to represent Greenwood Acres and Timber Knoll Unit No. 2 Subdivision. We have put in an appeal to close Timber Oak Drive, a small portion of that street that is in Timber Knoll, Unit 2. The property owner that is adjacent to us to the south has also put in an appeal.

I believe that I think the issue is that we are denying him access. It was never our intention to do that nor do I feel we are doing it. These subdivisions were set up, there were three originally and all of them have access to Pines Road. One from Yarborough and the other, the unit that Mr. Bowman owned is from Celema Lane and ours from Wonderland. We want to put a fence around that subdivision and have a gated community there. Mr. Bowman does have access even if we close that off through Celema Lane, and I have asked for some ruling or law or some kind of guideline to give us something as to say what we’re doing is right or wrong, but the City said it’s sort of case-by-case.

But I did find something in the State statute that said that a person could provide himself access through his own property to the road and Mr. Bowman has been using this road. Celema Lane which comes in from Pines Road and going up through the center of his property. Also there are utility lines on that property. So, more than Mr. Bowman is using that street that gives him access to his property. Thank you.

Mr. Thompson: I believe that’s 202 and 203.

Kenneth Kreft (157 Archer): My concern is subsequent to the comments several of you have made on the infrastructure. I do believe we have put in quite a lot, more so next year than this year, more so this year than last year. Who knows about ‘05, so the trend anyway I think is to narrow the gap.

I do believe however, that there is an amendment today, one of many, which would do something like the Pirates’ amendment recently that didn’t pass, but I’m still concerned that we need to put about $1.4million into the streets. Y’all can divide that. $200,000 per district as you see fit. But I do think at a minimum, this Council should seriously entertain that amendment. We can’t do it all over night. You know, but we can start. And we’re kinda like LSU was after Florida. We’re re-grouping. But they won seven in a row and there are seven of y’all. And in a way to start winning again for us to beat South Carolina the next game, we need to put some more money into streets and the neighborhoods.

Pastor Michael Brown (6906 Henderson): I came before and what bothered me most of all, when we talked about Allendale Golf Center that’s over in Allendale/Lakeside, I came to talk about that. My brother who some years ago, got his first scholarship played golf there. I remembered the times that we worked picking up bottles at the Country Club, but we couldn’t learn to golf over there. So, I’m really concerned about that little pennies that y’all spending just to maintain those little holes over there that would be an issue of closing that place down.

There’s a lot of African-Americans- - - it bothered me most of all in Louisiana, especially in Shreveport, we have a way that when we start cutting, we always start cutting in the African-American community. We always start in the Black neighborhoods when we cut. It bothers most of all, that little golf center compared to Querbes and I wondered how much money are you spending at Querbes. How much green fees are you getting over at Querbes or Huntington.

I think it’s just such a small center that means a whole lot to that community, that you guys wouldn’t close that place down. And I’m sure that you could find some money somewhere. that if you’re finding money for - - - I heard somebody say that we’re finding money to get a car for Pastor Policing and other little things. That center means a whole lot to a whole lot of young people who won’t have an opportunity to learning their skills in golfing. So, I don’t want to see that closed and I’m hoping that you wouldn’t.

I’m listening to the Mayor talked about and I really got upset when I heard somebody---I’m glad that he cleared that up about suggesting $10 for garbage pick up fee where that’s gonna affect the African-American, the Black community again. People gotta pay for the garbage.

I’m gonna say this in my closing. I strongly think that this Council ought to look at the fact of I don’t have my research is the Union, let the City workers have a union. Maybe y’all don’t like PACE, but they need to have some representation and I think a union is good for this City. I heard some comments from the Mayor. I need to say this one thing. If this City is gonna work, it cannot exclude - -cannot cut off and they did it for years and years and years, cut certain people out of the process. We can’t do this. We had a rodeo went to Bossier. Ten thousand almost nine thousand, for the Black Rodeo. I want to say this and I hope it’s clear, The Times gave us a small article this small. We had nine thousand Blacks over in the Century Tel, no shooting, no fighting, no rioting, no nothing. Just having a good wholesome time. We cannot exclude certain people out of this process and expect this City is going to be prosperous. It’s not gonna do it. It’s not gonna happen. And we shut down a little old golf center over in Allendale, a few little holes, not a lot of maintenance, somebody said at a cost of $200,000. I don’t know what the cost is, but we really need to look at several things in this City that’s really gonna help this City to grow. Thank you for the opportunity to say those two things.

Councilman Lester: Pastor Brown, you are 100% correct, I agree with you totally. We’re not going to do anything to diminish or close Lakeside Golf Course. It’s not going to happen. Not so long as Lakeside remains in District A and I keep a seat up here; that’s not going to happen. That is not an option at all.

What we need to do and I’ve talked with Mr. Norman, is find some ways that we can reinvest in the golf course to bring it up to standard. I think one of the problems that we have at Lakeside is that we’re at an unfair competition. You have a golf course that’s nine holes, where others are 18. You have a golf course that doesn’t have any place for recreation or hamburgers. You can’t buy anything to eat or anything like that. You have a Coke machine whereas at other places, they have other facilities.

And even more than that, Lakeside Golf Course means a heck of a lot to the history and the character–not only of the Allendale community, but it means a lot to the people in the City, particularly African-American community; so, I’m sitting here making a pledge to you and everybody else that’s out there. I’m not gonna let Allendale close and I’m certainly not going to let anything happen to Lakeside Golf Course so long as I’m the chairman and I still have breath.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t know if everybody was aware of it, because I saw people submitting requests to speak and I heard Pastor Brown speak and it seems as if half the people are under the impression that something is going to happen to Lakeside Golf Course or even that there is some consideration and I think to clarify things so that everybody who is here will know, certainly not trying to suggest that they shouldn’t speak, but the closure of Lakeside Golf Course is not even on the agenda. That it is funded at the same level as or a comparable level of what it has been. It doesn’t loose anything and it is as it has been for this year and I think one of the goals for this Council is talking about is how to improve it, how to get together with the PGA and other people and try to do what we can to improve the golf course. But there is nothing on the agenda, just for your information, relative to closing Lakeside Golf Course at all.

So, just wanted to be sure that everybody was clear on an issue that has- - -that there is nothing on the agenda that even addresses Lakeside Golf Course, other than the Golf budget which is - - -which I don’t think is in any failure of passing. So, just wanted to let you all know for your information, those who may have had that kind of concern that its not on the agenda for closure at all.

Councilman Green: Yes sir, and I just wanted say during our Budget sessions there were discussions as to how we could improve it, none about how we could close it; so, that’s just for the record.

Councilman Carmody: There are actually three other persons here who noted that they wish to speak on Lakeside Golf Course and if I could ask them if they had some other information to add to please come forward. The first person is Mack Myles, Jr.

Mack Myles (3317 Hickory Ridge Drive): I was employed at Lakeside since ‘71 and stayed there 22 years and I was raised in that neighborhood. I was there when it was all White. I carried bags, it was run through where Booker Washington is with rocks. After I finished carrying the bags, they would run us off. They closed it in ‘64, I believe. They re-opened it in ‘72. It was all White and then they re-opened it for all Blacks. So we stayed there until in the ‘60s and then they opened it to everyone.

You haven’t had any incidents of violence. You have had to date 36 young men and ladies to receive full scholarships to college and I don’t see how anyone could ever entertain closing a facility in that neighborhood and we have productive—and if anyone in here plays golf, they would know what I mean. Golf do so many things. It is a therapy, its an exercise, it’s just so many things. But if you ever gonna do anything to enhance your City and citizens and young people and your seniors and your ladies and gentlemen, I think you should never, never entertain- - - if you entertain closing Lakeside, entertain closing all golf.

Charles Parsons (3506 Bellaire Avenue): Basically, I came to speak on behalf of Lakeside to say what it needs to be. Without Lakeside, I wouldn’t have anything to do basically and that’s one of the reasons why I went to college, to play golf. And it gives me a place, because right now, I’m in college on break. That gave me a place to come while I’m home. I feel like I’m at home now, that’s family. I mean we are close net and not that I even entertained the fact, I wasn’t scared they’re were going to be closing or anything like that, I just came to speak and let Shreveport know how close the people at Lakeside Golf Course are. We stick together; that’s the thing, so, thank you.

Jerry Tim Brooks (4609 Curtis Lane) Fine Mr. Chairman, how you doing? Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, Staff, Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Jerry Tim Brooks. I know about Lakeside. In 1959, I wrote the book, ‘59 I wrote the book. And by the way Reverend Brown, your son and your brother got a scholarship from Jerry Brooks. I want you to know that. Give me some (inaudible) before I die.

But anyway Mr. Chairman, I was the first Black to go to college on a golf scholarship in America. I’m not talking about in Shreveport, in America. I am not talking in Shreveport, in America. That golf course in 1952 was designated by Mr. Ewing in 1952, saying that this was a N-golf course and he wanted the Ns ends to play here and not at Querbes.

Every year, Mr. Mayor under all the mayors, we’ve had problems at this time because of funding. I think Mr. Mayor, we need to really look at this thing and I would just like to sit down with you and with a group and lets talk about it. How we can better this thing. And my friend Gibson, we play a lot of golf together, Southern Trace, we play everywhere.

But I can say this, that we have sent over 36 youngsters to school on golf scholarships. (Inaudible) You have Northwestern, you have Southern University, Prairie View, all of ‘em and they didn’t come from schools. Blacks didn’t get no scholarships from high school. They got the scholarships from Lakeside. And they know Lakeside haven’t been the best. I saw on T.V. just two days ago, they had two White fellows out there. And they were talking to the media saying "naw, they can’t close Lakeside". "We know that the Mayor of the City is not going to close it". Y’all ought not to close it, you ought to fix it up. You might close it, well, you might as well fix it.

If you would have seen those weeds out there, it was this high. It’s no money spent at Lakeside. Baton Rouge got 12 public courses. Twelve. New Orleans got three in the city on one place. Mayor, we’ve been misled, we’ve been misused, we need to sit down and call a spade a spade and we need to start at the top. If you can do it, you do it. If you can’t, let’s get rid of it. Because it’s causing this city in a bad shape.

And let me tell you. When you opened that golf course, we had golfers come from Texas, Alexandria, Monroe, from all over. And when you start talking about Enterprise, y’all suppose to vote on that today, don’t vote on that because it ain’t nothing but a gimmick. It’s like a three card molly, three card molly. Lakeside always out. And Mr. Mayor, I wish you’d take it out of the Enterprise and put it back under General Fund, like we had it at one time and then you could see where the money is going. You could see what is needed for this golf course.

Now, like I told you. I wrote the book on golf. I got scholarship golf - first Black. All American, Hall of Fame, all of that from Lakeside and Allendale, Allendale Park–out there in the park. We need to sit down, Mr. Mayor, and have some direction.

And I get tired of every year, we talk about Lakeside. You know that’s the thing, Gib. Cause Lakeside is good. Black youngsters didn’t even play golf in school. I begged that Superintendent. I had to beg the Superintendent to let Blacks play golf in the schools. He told me no. He didn’t want no Blacks out there playing with Whites. And Mr. Gib, you know about golf, I know about golf, and the Mayor. Why don’t we sit down and have a talk and see where we’re missing. Mr. Mayor, this can do better.

Councilman Walford: I’d like to talk you about Lakeside, but I don’t want to sit down with you. I’d just as soon do it at Lakeside while we play a round of golf and I’m available anytime you want to do that.

Mr. Brooks: Then you’ll have to give me a lot now.

Councilman Gibson: Pro and I say that respectfully, because with the number of tournaments you’ve won over the years, but Pro, I think you have a great idea. I said this a year ago, and Mr. Jackson and I had that conversation at budget meeting. I think its definitely high time that the Administration and this Council working with you and a couple of others, sit down and come up with a plan, like from a funding stand point and I would ask that maybe Councilman Lester give some strong consideration to helping take the lead with your help, seeing, obviously that’s an issue, but I know that Councilman Jackson and I both talked about our commitment to try to work the ways to where we can maybe raise some private dollars to parlay with public monies to look at what we could do out there and I would appreciate your involvement out there and I do appreciate your comments.

Mr. Brooks: Thank you very much.

Mr. May: (938 Lafayette, New Orleans, Louisiana, also 610 Marshal Street): I want to thank the Councilmen, thank the Mayor for this opportunity to just speak briefly with you all. We’re going to be talking about and what I’d like to briefly discuss is a partnership that I would like to see take place between us, the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center and the City of Shreveport and the Greater Shreveport Human Relations Commission.

We were asked to come here to support and to help the Greater Shreveport Human Relations Commission broaden the scope of services so they can better serve the citizens of Shreveport. And, what we’re asking the Council to do is to do just as we have been asked to do which is to support and help the Greater Shreveport do that. We’re asking that the partnership between the City and between us and Human Relations Commission broaden the scope of services to start bringing on fair housing as a part of it’s purpose and agenda.

What we want to do is simply this. And I feel like there are three benefits that can occur. We want to train the staff of the Human Relations Commission to conduct fair housing training in the community to educate those citizens about it. We want to be able to train them so that they can also host an annual conference here that can benefit the housing professionals, but also the greater community as well, all those citizens that are being served by the City Council and also by the City of Shreveport. This is a part of building a community that we were talking about building so that we can have a golf course, building so that we can have safer communities and starting by making sure that home ownership and that all citizens of Shreveport have access to home ownership.

What we have in mind is first training the staff to do the training in the community of faith based organizations and non-profits. Training of the staff so that they can provide technical assistance to you all as well as lending a resource that we will be here to the City of Shreveport so that we can provide training to the Community Development Staff, to the Housing Staff of the City of Shreveport and we can provide guidance on any and all issues that are dealing with development of how housing is used and how management is used for those purposes.

The second thing that we have in mind and the benefit I want to say, its an idea, but also for the benefit that we think that this partnership between Human Relations and the Greater Shreveport can do, it can also foster better development that occurred, better decisions that are being made by the City, but also tying in and satisfy those deliverables that the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has stated that all those jurisdictions that received Community Development Block Grant dollars have to affirm (inaudible) to Fair Housing. By you supporting this project, supporting this partnership, you in term are actually satisfying those things, because the activities that I’ve named aren’t doing that, they’re going to satisfy those things.

The last part of this is actually affecting a larger community. If we can increase that access to home ownership, we can also benefit and strengthen the City of Shreveport in this way. The taxes that are paid through real estate tax, even though we are homestead- - -and this is actually the part I feel that’s actually the most important part of this initiative. I spoke about the training and how its going to benefit those housing professionals. I spoke about the training that we want to do with the staff that’s going to benefit the general public in educating them about the fair housing rights and permitting them to access housing. But this last part is equally important. And also I spoke about the deliverable part of us helping the City satisfy its obligations to the Federal Government. But in terms of trying to increase the opportunities to home ownership, shoring up that tax base here. Making sure that there are additional dollars that can come into the community because more home owners are able to actually buy and purchase homes.

What that does is, those real estate taxes that are generated, even though we are in the homestead exemption state, those taxes that are generated can be used to pay for the infrastructure that we were speaking about earlier, that are so needed in this community. Paying for the police services, paying for EMS, paying for schools, paying for roads. That all comes from the real estate taxes that are generated from home ownership, but it also does this. Those consumers who are moving to those homes can actually be in position to purchase other durable goods and other housing services; so, this is how it revolves into the community.

That means your electricians are going to have jobs, because they’re going to need to do work on those homes. Those plumbers are going to have jobs, because they’re going to need to do those things. All the durable goods from Home Depot to Lowes and all those other places and entities that sell those products for consumers are going to benefit and those taxes again are going to come back to the City of Shreveport.

So, in closing I ask that you all support this. At a level of $62,500, what it does is permit us to turn around and match it at 50% and then in term go after federal dollars to match that $100,000 dollars that will be at our disposal to do this partnership. So, it’s a increase in the revenue to better serve the citizens of Shreveport, but more importantly to improve the entire community.

Roxanne Johnson (10345 Evangeline Oaks Circle): On behalf of the Board of Directors and Commissioners that are here this evening, I’d like to thank you for this opportunity. Actually, I think that I was supposed to go before Mr. Mays, so it might sound a little bit repetitive, but I think mine is a little bit more in layman’s terms than what you might have heard.

I have basically a statement to read to you on behalf of the Greater Shreveport Human Relations Commission Board of Directors. The mission of the Human Relations Commission is to conduct and promote activities that foster mutual respect, equality and understanding. But today, the Commission would like to introduce its partnership between the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center and the Greater Shreveport Human Relations Commission and of course the City of Shreveport to better serve the citizens of the City of Shreveport in a manner that we believe the Council can endorse and support.

The Commission would like to make housing a higher priority and broaden its scope of services to include fair housing services and activities. We will continue to provide education outreach and conciliations services plus start and conduct their housing training. The Human Relations Commission and The Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center will host annual fair housing conference that was targeted at housing professionals and Realtors and the citizens will receive information about the fair housing rights, first home buyers group, faith based organizations and community development corporations that receive CDBG funds, but also have access to services that help to satisfy their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.

We would also continue to facilitate conversations on diversity topics as it relates to the protective classes and coordinate activities with local organizations with different missions and most certainly with common interests. We recognize the needs to broaden services as it relates to being more inclusive of all citizens who are facing issues with housing.

As a board, we recognize the need to respond to the funding challenges, most certainly of obtaining external funding resources that will most certainly relieve the stress on the City’s financial resources.

So, we are appealing the previous decision and requesting that you continue to fund the Greater Shreveport Human Relations Commission at a level of $62,500 with an expansion of the scope of services. The Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Center is willing to match the City’s funds at 50% and with that funds would be approximately $100,000 and then The Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center will apply for matching dollars to the HUD’s for Housing Initiative Program.

In closing when we say ‘civil rights’ and when we say ‘human rights’, as members of this Commission, we are speaking of all the privileges and the benefits entitled to all of the citizens of this community.

Artis Cash (900 Francais Drive): First of all, let me say, I think that’s amazing what ms. Johnson and them have put together to keep hope alive in that area and what’s taking place with that. But now, I was sent here today, I’m on assignment. I want everybody to know that especially, the two ladies that I saw in IHOP. There are two older, not elderly, but older Caucasian ladies that saw me at IHOP and they jumped me and they said, Dr. Cash, we cannot afford to pay $10 garbage tax. And so, I said to them, I don’t have nothing to do with that. I’m not an elected official. They said yes you do and we’ve been seeing you and we want you to go down there and we want you to tell the Mayor and everybody else. And I said well, I’m going to do what you asked me to do. So, just in case those ladies are watching, in which I know they are. I’m doing what you all asked me to do and so, you all cleared it up. I went to the Mayor and Mayor you can attest to that. I went to the Mayor and the Mayor said ‘no, that’s not me Doc’. And I said, whoever it is, I need to get to them. So, I’m asking the seven of you, which ever one of you issued that statement to the press, please pull it back, because those two ladies said they cannot afford to give that $10 dollars. Now someone came up earlier and said well, it’s going to affect the minority community, but it’s gonna affect the Caucasian community as well. These two ladies said they do not want to spend that $10 dollars. So, whoever it is, I’m gonna close my eyes, you just raise your hand and they’ll already know that I told you. Alright.

Now, the second thing is that - - - I like what Councilman Lester is proposing because we can find money if we start and make an attempt right now not to pay out any more law suits. These police shootings have cost us dearly. These police misconducts have cost us dearly. Mr. Lester suggested Tasers. I think that’s a wonderful idea. I’m here in support of those Tasers, Mr. Lester and I hope that this Council will put together and do what’s right with respect to those Tasers because it’s so badly needed.

Again, one final thing is the golf course, I thought I was going to be called on that. I bought my first par of John Hardy shoes for $7.70 from the golf course. I was caddying for Jerry Tim Brooks. Watching Mr. Brooks up here just a moment ago, my heart went out and I know I heard from God and this is what I want to suggest to you. Do everything Mr. Brooks asked you to do with respect to that golf course, but do me a favor. Consider renaming that course after him. This man has been a pillar in our community and we wait till people die before we can bless it. We need to start blessing folks while they are alive. And I suggest to you this golf course needs to be renamed from Lakeside Golf Course to Jerry Tim Brooks Golf Course because this is a man that deserves anything that we can put together for him.

So, with that I want to close and just say to you that in working out your budgets, please consider that we can stop a lot of this stuff if we be proactive. We don’t have to be going through what we’re going through. And we don’t have to be coming up with these hard questions or these hard choices.

And those two ladies in IHOP on Youree Drive don’t ever have to stop me again and say come and help. Alright. And I’d like to do one thing before I go. I know you all pray a lot, but I believe in the power of prayer. I want to thank Councilman Coach Reverend Green for initiating a prayer vigil most recently on the corner of Hollywood and Broadway. I went out there that morning and had an excellent time, some of the members of the Pastor Patrols were there and so we had a good time, those that came out and it shows that we care about our community. We realize that its going to take prayer to do it and I just want to leave you in this season. I want to declare that your houses will be blessed, your homes will be blessed, your families will be blessed and they will be safe, and I ask that God’s grace continue to abound upon all of you and his wisdom will come forth and encourage you to make great decisions.

Councilman Hogan: Dr. Cash, just a comment. I appreciate those kind words that you’ve said and I was speaking to the Police Chief lately. He was informing me that if this was approved and I am in support of the Taser guns, if it’s approved, we’re going to need some volunteers for demonstration and I was wondering if you would be willing to serve as a volunteer for demonstration–just kidding?

Dr. Cash: No, I need a younger person. Mr. Lester went and in fact, I have a friend that I want to suggest that to, his name is Bishop Caldwell. He’s younger than I am and I think he could come up and handle it.

Councilman Lester: Dr. Cash, I think that was the right move, because having done it, you might be more circumspect before you volunteer somebody for Taser, cause it’s not the most comfortable feeling the world. Trust me. I know.

Dr. Cash: You had it today.

Councilman Lester: Oh yeah, I did it today at 12:30 for two seconds and that’s the longest two seconds of my life Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Cash: But now, if I may speak Mr. Chairman. From that you can now see how we could have saved this most recent young man and Hudspeth. We could have saved both of those lives and so, I think that the Tasers are right on time. Well, they’re behind time, but they are right for now.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Lester, you’d rather pick up garbage than do the Taser demonstration?

Councilman Lester: Most definitely.

Councilman Carmody: Alright gentlemen, I appreciate y’all’s help.

Sylvia Goodman (409 Southfield Road): And I spoke yesterday, so I just wanted to reinforce what I said yesterday that the film center that we seeking funds is more than a film theater. It is an educational facility with programming for school children as well as adults. We will have film making classes, film making summer camps and we will work with the schools to tie our films into their curriculum. So, I just wanted to make that point one more time, that we will have a major impact as well as being a tourist destination as the closest similar facility is in Dallas, Texas.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Ms. Goodman. Are there any questions for Ms. Goodman? Thank you ma’am for your help. Gentlemen, I hate to acknowledge a shortcoming of myself at anytime, but I am gonna say this. I’m having difficulty from this position in seeing the time that’s on the wall. Could those of you who can see it- - - I think it was a good exercise to try to limit comments to three minutes and at least at three minutes to identify to the Chairman that we needed to move. Could I ask y’all’s assistance if you could read that, to at least make that motion at that time so that we can be consistent.

Councilman Green: Also, Mr. Chairman, if you would like to appoint me as that person, I got a good view and for a small fee I’ll do it.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you sir for that volunteer. I appreciate it. This brings us back to our agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS: None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES :

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Green seconded by Councilman Jackson for Introduction of Ordinance No. 204 of 2003 to lay over until the January 13, 2004. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

1. Ordinance No. 204 of 2003: An ordinance closing and abandoning the 22 foot-wide alleyway running between East 70^th and East 71^st Streets and between Southern Avenue and I-49 located in the Cedar Grove Addition in the NW/4 of Section 25 (17N-R14W) and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

RESOLUTIONS:

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford for Adoption of Resolution No. 192 of 2003. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 192 of 2003

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHARD ANTHONY HAUSLER & LAUREL LANE HAUSLER, LOCATED AT 6580 NORTH LAKESHORE DR., TO CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Richard Anthony Hausler & Laurel Lane Hausler 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 Richard Anthony Hausler & Laurel Lane Hausler, be authorized to connect the building located at 6580 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 Walford, seconded by Councilman Green for Adoption of Ordinance Nos. 186 through 189 of 2003. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

ORDINANCE NO. 186 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH A NO PARKING ZONE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00AM AND 9:00AM ON EITHER SIDE OF THE 600 BLOCK OF STEPHENSON STREET AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECTTHERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that it shall hereafter be unlawful for anyone to park any vehicle between the hours of 7:00am and 9:00am on either side of the 600 block of Stephenson Street. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

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

ORDINANCE NO. 187 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH A NO PARKING ANY TIME ZONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 1500 BLOCK OF DICKINSON STREET 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 it shall hereafter be unlawful for anyone to park any vehicle any time of the day or night on the south side of the 1500 block of Dickinson Street.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 188 OF 2003

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.

BY: COUNCILMAN GIBSON

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the portion of Ordinance No. 107 of 1991, item number 19,

which created a two-way stop at the intersection of Hidden Hollow Drive and Overcross Drive is

hereby repealed, and to create and establish the intersection of Hidden Hollow Drive and Overcross Street as a four-way stop intersection requiring all traffic and vehicles approaching this intersection to come to a full stop before entering the intersection.

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

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts

thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 189 OF 2003

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 DRIVE AS A FOUR WAY STOP INTERSECTION AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: COUNCILMAN GIBSON

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the portion of Ordinance No. 107 of 1991, item number 22, which created a two-way stop at the intersection of the 10,000 block of Beaver Creek Drive

and Trail Ridge Road is hereby repealed, and to create and establish the intersection of the 10,000 block of Beaver Creek Drive and Trail Ridge Drive as a four-way stop intersection requiring all traffic and vehicles approaching this intersection to come to a full stop before entering the intersection.

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.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, may I thank everyone for 186 and assure them that your sister would also be very grateful.

Councilman Carmody: Well, and if I can take just a second here and thank her Councilman for very good representation, I appreciate it and hopefully that would alleviate the problem that those neighbors in that area have experienced with people parking on their street.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION:

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 OWED 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.

WHEREAS, Shreveport Convention Center Hotel Authority, a public trust (the "Authority") intends to develop, improve and construct a 300-guest room hotel (the "Hotel");

WHEREAS, the Authority desires to enter into a Qualified Management Agreement (the "Management Agreement") with H.R.I. Lodging Incorporated, a Louisiana corporation (the "Manager"), pursuant to which the Authority shall engage the Manager to manage and operate the Hotel;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Management Agreement, the Manager will enter into a franchise or license agreement (the "Franchise Agreement") with Hilton Inns, Incorporated (the "Franchisor"), pursuant to which the Hotel will be operated under the Franchisor’s trade names and in accordance with the Franchisor’s operating rules, regulations and standards;

WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement will have a term of at least nineteen (19) years, and will provide that if the Manager terminates the Franchise Agreement prior to the expiration of its term, the Manager and Historic Restoration, Incorporated (an affiliate of the Manager) ("HRI") will incur liability for termination fees (the "Termination Fees") payable to the Franchisor;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Management Agreement, if the Management Agreement is terminated for any reason other than Default (as defined in the Management Agreement) by the Manager, the Authority is obligated to reimburse, upon demand (the "Reimbursement Obligation"), the Manager and HRI for the Termination Fees which either party has paid or is obligated to pay to the Franchisor;

WHEREAS, as a condition to entering into the Management Agreement and the Franchise Agreement, the Manager and the Franchisor require the City to guarantee payment of the Reimbursement Obligation;

WHEREAS, the City has determined that the Hotel is of benefit to the citizens of the City in that the Hotel will allow the City to optimize the investments made in connection with the Convention Center project of which the Hotel is a part, and the Hotel will create additional employment and provide additional amenities of benefit to the citizens of and businesses within the City, and accordingly, based on such evaluation of the benefits to be received by the City, the City has determined to guarantee payment of the Reimbursement Obligation;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the Mayor on behalf of the City is authorized to obtain the approval of the guarantee of payment of the Reimbursement Obligation from the Louisiana State Bond Commission as authorized by LSA-R.S. 39:1410.60(A);

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon receipt of said approval from the State Bond Commission, the Mayor is authorized to execute a joinder of the Qualified Management Agreement with H.R.I. Management Corporation, substantially in accordance with the draft thereof filed for public inspection with the original of this resolution in the Office of the Clerk of Council on October 28, 2003, for the purpose of guaranteeing payment of the Reimbursement Obligation;

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

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

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson for passage.

Councilman Carmody: The Chair would ask at this point if City Attorney, Ramon LaFitte could come forward, please.

Mr. Antee: I don’t see him in the Chamber, but I could probably answer your question.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Antee, I made a request to Mr. LaFitte for a opinion regarding the guarantee of the payment of determination of the franchise agreement by the city of Shreveport and was hoping to get an explanation on that matter.

Basically, for the public, my questions were in that the city of Shreveport has created a Shreveport Hotel Authority to build and operate the Convention Center Hotel which was not authorized by vote of the citizens, that the Shreveport Hotel Authority desires to contract with HRI to manage our Convention Center Hotel and HRI intends to enter into the franchise agreement with Hilton for at least 19 years.

Today the City Council is being asked to authorize the mayor to obligate the City to pay a termination fee to Hilton if the franchise agreement is terminated early in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the franchise agreement and based on that agreement the termination fees could be substantial.

Therefore, does the City Council have the authority to obligate the City of Shreveport for at least 19 years without the vote of the electors to pay the termination fee of a franchise agreement if terminated early and if so, please cite this specific authority or authorities?

Mr. Antee: Do you have an answer to that?

Councilman Carmody: Brian Barber, Assistant City Attorney. How are you, Sir.

Mr. Barber: I’m fine, thank you. I’m Brian Barber, I just spoke to Mr. LaFitte and we have gone over this in detail. And in answer to the e-mail or the questions that you just read – I’ll just read this verbatim as I responded to the exact question that you just posed.

The City of Shreveport, created under the Shreveport Hotel Authority as approved by City Council in Resolution 26 of 2002 , as per LSA-R.S. 9:2341(A). So, yes, this body – legislative body has and still has the authority create the Shreveport Hotel Authority which it did.

Next, the Authority may conduct business such as enter into contracts as it is recognized as a corporation under the same LSA-R.S. 9:2341(D).

And lastly, obligating the City in an agreement or contract in this case is left to the governing authority as defined in Section 4.33 Shreveport Code of Ordinances and Louisiana Constitution Art. 6 § 44. Seeking approval -- if you will see on your agenda as to the bottom part Louisiana State Bond Commission is mentioned in seeking approval from the Louisiana State Bond Commission would negate the need for what we call, a Non-appropriations Clause in the agreement.

Mr. Antee: I think Mr. Barber did give you the legal answer and the cite saying that yes, the Council can obligate the City without having to go to the vote of the people and it does it on a regular basis. But if I can explain briefly what this resolution does.

The franchise agreement is – we have a management, the Hotel Trust Authority has a management agreement or will have a management agreement with HRI as the manager. HRI has the franchise agreement with Hilton Hotels. If the Hotel Trust Authority, which consist of the Mayor, the CAO, the Chairman, Vice Chairman and a Citizen decides to terminate the management agreement or causes the manager to terminate the franchise agreement with Hilton without cause, just for the sake of saying ‘we want somebody else to come in and do it,’ then the Hotel Trust Authority would be responsible for the termination fees in accordance with the franchise agreement. And that is a standard franchise agreement that Hilton has with anybody that is opening the hotel. Since the Hotel Trust is new and until the bonds are sold, doesn’t have any assets, the manager, HRI, and Hilton have asked that the City guarantee the trust obligation.

Now, as time goes the hotel bonds are being paid off then equity would be built into the Trust Authority. This is no different than when a 20-year-old who is in college goes to get her first car can’t buy--like my daughter, can’t buy a car because she doesn’t the credit and needs her parents to co-sign. She is responsible primarily and in the event she doesn’t pay then the parent would have to come in as the co-signer; that is exactly what we are doing here.

Now, if it is an issue, the manager HRI has stated that and it is what they asked for originally, if we put a clause in there that they cannot be terminated for convenience under any circumstances then they don’t need the guarantee of the City because then the Trust Authority can’t come in and dictate that they get rid of Hilton and go get Marriot or Crown Plaza or anybody else and they wouldn’t be subjected to the penalties. So, in talking to the Mayor, he say, we’ll let the Council decide do we want to give them a no-termination clause which ties the hands of the Hotel Trust Authority down the road or do we want to give them the guarantee on behalf of the Trust Authority? And we can live with and HRI and Hilton can live with either decision.

Councilman Carmody: I guess what my question went to was, what the potential cost would be to the City if the Hotel Trust Authority were to terminate the franchise agreement without having the assets or the equity that you were talking about? What would be the cost then to the General Fund or to the citizens, in essence, the tax-payers?

Mr. Antee: If they went in, in Year 2 and said, let’s change it a little bit,-- yeah, Year 2 of operation which would be the next administration, the next mayor and administration and they came in and said, we don’t like Hilton. We are Marriot people then the cost would be quite high and that’s why we have it set up this way is, you know what the cost is, now is it worth it to you; so, they got to make a decision. If it is in the year before the contract expires then the cost would be very small because it is a sliding scale, the more years that is left on the contract the higher the fee and the less years the lower the fee.

And what we worked out with the management agreement to have continuity which is what all the experts and the convention center business and hotel business stated, you want to have that continuity, is to tie up the management agreement so that it can be consistent from administration to administration but not yet just totally locked it in so that if for some reason it did make sense and they could waive the cost plus the benefit then that administration, at that time, could make the decision knowing what it would cost.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I think I can follow where the request and I believe this request was from you, correct?

Councilman Carmody: That is correct.

Councilman Gibson: Does this Council have the authority and again, excuse my ignorance, but does this Council have the authority to hire outside counsel?

Mr. Carmody: I would look to Mr. Thompson but I believe that in the past that we actually have done that.

Councilman Gibson: Do we have that authority?

Mr. Thompson: I think we could do it with concurrence of the City Attorney.

Councilman Gibson: With the concurrence of the City Attorney? So, this body does not have the–we don’t have the ability to ask, on our own without City Attorney advise?

Mr. Thompson: I think the Charter says that all lawyers hired by the City must be approved by the City Attorney. But, as a matter of practice, I don’t think the City Attorney has ever refused when the Council asked for any particular lawyer.

Councilman Gibson: I think that because we have got some history over the last few years, I would like to ask for a delay on this particular motion. I would like to ask that we have outside counsel give us an overview of what we are dealing with here because this Council did not approve the Hotel Authority. We are inheriting that issue. Obviously we are committing dollars I think if I am not mistaken, we have up to an $8- to $9,000,000 dollar risk somewhere down the line if this thing were to go south. I just think that in the best interest of the taxpayers.

And the City, obviously I’m a favor of having a hotel because obviously that has got to be a component with the convention center but if we take just a little extra time in looking at this thing, having outside counsel represent this body that this particular Councilman would feel more comfortable with an outside opinion.

Councilman Carmody: Would that be in the form of a substitute motion?

Councilman Gibson: Yes.

Councilman Carmody: We do have a motion on the floor currently

Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Hogan to postpone the resolution until the December 19, 2003 meeting.

Councilman Lester: I have listen to this discussion and I, since my time on the Council heard different councilmen ask questions as relates to the Convention Center Hotel Authority. My first question as it relates to the termination clause would be: Why would one want to terminate the clause? Why would you want to terminate a contract without cause?

I mean, if you are going to terminate a contract without cause whether you are dealing with a convention center hotel, whether you are dealing with a real estate agreement, whether you are dealing with a construction contract there are going to be penalties associated with terminating a contract without cause.

Now, if we are in a situation where two years down the line or ten years down the line, we have an operator and for some reason that operator does not live up to that agreement that has been codified by contract then we can terminate that person for cause and it won’t cost the City anything. But I think at the same time just looking at it from pure business standpoint, if Hilton has been contracted to be the player in terms of the hotel franchise then they have made certain representations to the City and certain representations to the Convention Center Hotel Authority and I don’t think it would be good business for just because you might have a change of Administration then someone decides, you know what, I have never liked Hilton in my life, I want to go with Marriot. Well, if you are going to make those changes you should do it with cause and if you are going to do it without cause you should have to pay.

So, I think the whole purpose of this clause is not only to protect the City in terms of having some continuity with your operator but it also sends a message to the business community that we are not subject to whim and fancy, that just because you have a change in mayoral administration you don’t have to worry about us changing our deal on you.

One of the problems that we have had in prior years as a City is, we got a reputation that we are bad for business. That you make a contract with the City of Shreveport and if the Administration change or the political winds change then your deal is done and I think that is a bad deal. And, for Hilton to commit the resources that they are going to commit for this hotel then they should have some assurance that if we decide to terminate their contract without cause, not for cause, without cause, there should be some penalties, that’s my first thing.

The second thing is in terms of inheriting things. You know there are a lot of things that we have inherited. We have inherited a convention center that we had nothing to do with. Now, I mean, we are dealing with that.

I have read the contract. I think we have had the City Attorney read the contract, I don’t see anything that says any of the advice that we have been given from Mr. Barber or anybody from the City Attorney’s office is bad. On many other occasions we have requested opinions from them and they have given us opinions. We might agree them, we might think that they are right but they have given us their own legal opinion to the best of their knowledge without the politics because these aren’t politicians. Most of the people that are here in the City Attorney’s office, as I appreciate it, pre-date this particular administration. They are there for a period of years.

You know, if we want to get to a point where just because a City Attorney’s opinion comes back that we don’t like it and we want to hire our own attorney, I think that is going to send a bad precedence that we are revenue shopping or we are opinion shopping and I don’t think we need to do that. I think if this body is so concerned with the efficacy of the advice that we get from the City Attorney then you should request an Attorney General’s Opinion and any of us have the ability to do that. But just for, you know the point of I don’t like the opinion; I don’t agree with the opinion; I want to get somebody from the outside, I don’t see this as situation where we need to do that. We have on staff, counsel in Ms. Glass and Ms. Glass has traditionally been counsel for this body and although she does work for the City Attorney’s office she has been counsel to us on a number of issues and in fact, some issues that are going to come before this body today, different ones of us, different ones of us on Council have asked her opinion and they received it.

So, I just think we get into a negative situation where we start to opinion shop and I don’t think that, that particular situation is necessary and unless we can come with a reason why someone would want to change a contract that is viable without cause, I don’t think that, that is a particular issue. Now you and I both know that this Administration is going to be, you know, ending in three years and there is a distinct possibility that maybe somebody from this board is going to be sitting in that seat. So, that notwithstanding, if you don’t like Hilton then I think somebody needs to say that. But for us to say that we want to terminate a contract, without cause, and not have to pay any damages, I think that is a negative situation. And those of us – and many of us that are on this Council and in business situation know for a fact that if you terminate a viable contract without cause regardless of whether you are spending taxpayers’ money or our own money, there are going to be penalties. So for us to say, well you know if we terminate this contract without cause in 20 years it is going to hold the City in a negative situation then why would you terminate the contract without cause. It you are going to terminate then have a reason.

Councilman Carmody: I do want to make one point and that this council member did have a chance to go to the polls to vote for $85 million worth of bonds to build a convention center. So indeed, we had a say but included in that bond referendum did not say anything about a Convention Center Hotel or the City obligating the money to take care of it and that is the point in my question here, is specifically because as a voter my recollection of it was is that the market would come to us and bring private money in to facilitate building this hotel. And I give credit where credit is due. This Administration has searched high and low for persons to come in and evaluate. They have each given us basically the same comment that, they would like to be a part of the project in a management capacity but it would not return the type profit that they are looking for in order to justify putting their own money into it; that’s the real gist of my question and so just wanted to clarify that for you.

Councilman Jackson: I would want to be as simple as possible. First of all very fundamentally, I think there is a reason why this issue was even brought to the table, why we have even entertained the idea of a hotel. We get excited about signing contracts for a convention center for people to come and have no where to stay. I think it is a very practical matter that we deal with here and as it relates to this particular piece of legislation as I appreciate it, Councilman Gibson, I understand his – perhaps he has some hesitation but as I appreciate it this is a matter of doing business in a manner, (1) that both is legal and I think that is responsible on behalf of the City as I think the CAO said it, this was my first time hearing that there are other options.

You know, I think to not make a decision is to make the wrong decision. I think if we want to choose the other options we ought talk about the other option. The other option gives exclusivity ad infinitum, I think.

Mr. Antee: Nineteen (19) years.

Councilman Jackson: How long?

Mr. Antee: Nineteen (19) years.

Councilman Jackson: Nineteen (19) years and so I just think that this makes a lot of sense in my opinion. We asked and I think the Councilman, our Chairman asked initially for this opinion. I’m satisfied with the opinion that the City Attorney has given back to us. Have I always been satisfied? Not necessarily, but I understand and respect that their understanding of the law.

And so, I would ask this Council rather than to delay this that we would move forward on this because no matter what happens I respect the – not only the commentary but the deliberation that both the City Attorney’s office has given us, obviously Councilman Lester has given it some deliberation, and I initially started to joke that if a lawyer say we don’t need to hire a lawyer, I think that is a good idea.

But, I would suggest that in fact, I don’t see where we are going to principally or materially get anything different based on – I don’t know do we question the interpretation of the statutes, have we read the statute ourselves. Obviously none of us have never been in this position to talk about authorizing a guarantee payment for a hotel. So, I don’t know if in fact we are here – if your questions were answered Mr. Chairman, specifically it seems as if this City Attorney and representative for the City Attorney has answered succinctly the questions that were specifically, your questions. I don’t know if what raises out of those answers give additional questions or did this not go far enough to answer those. I recognize that we in fact didn’t vote on that particular part of it but I guess my question is, is that unprecedented to an activity or to do a project like this without that having been the case. I don’t know I’m trying to search for the reason behind the ambivalence with regard to this particular project. And so I just really wanted to find out because other than that I see no reason to delay other than just to delay for more–and every week we could possibly delay it and what we are actually doing is not moving forward to get anything accomplished in my opinion.

Councilman Carmody: Councilman Jackson I appreciate your comments and I do want to answer that the City Attorney’s office provided the opinion and the opinion is in essence saying that we have the ability as a Council to authorize administrations to in-debt the community for obligation, that is true.

And it is very clearly spelled out in the law but what actually – once you stop at that opinion it comes back to a political question and that political question is this. We are being asked to, and it is not again, we do it whenever we in-debt the City but this is something the voters were not ever made aware of.

And I don’t envision and I pray that in 19 years that Hilton is still the franchise operator of this facility. But if I’m going to be 43 in April and sometime before my 60^th birthday we terminate this and then all my neighbors decide to call me to remind me, "Man, alive. Mayor Joe Blow has got to pay all of this money. You were on the Council when you did it. I don’t recall us ever voting on it."

Well, that is what we are going to do right now. We are going to make sure that we all understand that this is what we are doing. I wanted to make sure they have clarified legally we can do this. Politically, is it the right decision? That was my point.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I’ll be 53 and I’ll be alright with that.

Councilman Green: Basically, actually, Mr. Chairman unless ya’ll come over and help my district get straighten out, none of us will be here anyway. So, but my comment is that we talked about outside counsel and our City Attorney has given their opinion and our Council lawyer has given his opinion and I’m ready to vote for this.

Councilman Hogan: First of all I would like to say that I am in favor of hotel. I think it could be a positive thing. I think it could be a compliment to our convention center. I’m looking forward to tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock when we break the ground on that Convention Center.

I’m not satisfied today as this stands right now because as we all remember here just a few weeks ago what happened to our agreement in the Red River District when we signed for $5 million dollars and we saw that go right out the drain. And, so this -- in my opinion this is a similar situation. I don’t understand all the legal aspects of this but I this is similar and I think we need to be really careful about how we sign on the line for, and I still have not heard an amount. Mr. Antee, was there a dollar amount. I heard you say very high.

Mr. Antee: There is a formula and the formula is based on the number of years left in the contract. And so you can hire every outside attorney in the city and they are going to tell you if they don’t pay, we owe it. If the Trust doesn’t pay it then the City owes it. You can hire every accountant out there as an outside accountant and they can’t tell you what the number is unless you can tell them the exact day that it is going to be terminated.

As far as postponing, we will strongly ask that you do not postpone. Either vote it up or vote it down. We are going to go forward. Hilton is in a position to go. They want an answer. They have been sitting on this thing for about two years now ready to go with a franchise agreement. They want an answer and we got a meeting set Tuesday to start the kick off design; so, let’s give them an answer.

We don’t think as an Administration that it makes sense to tie the hands of the next three, four, or five Administrations from making a decision at that time as to whether or not they want to keep Hilton or not. If ya’ll want to do that, that’s fine. But we don’t want to be looked back on in history in ten years from and they say, ‘Mayor Hightower signed this thing in and nobody – no other mayor can get out of it at whatever cost.’ But if that is what the Council wants to do then we as the Mayor and the Administration, we are fine in sitting back and saying, ‘we didn’t the Council did.’ So we can live with it either way.

We just think what make sense and the most sense and what you would do if you were a businessman out here making the decision as a business decision then guaranteeing the Hotel Trust debt with the likelihood of having to pay on that debt is very small because if they are not doing anything wrong you won’t get rid of them. If they are doing something wrong, you don’t have to pay anyway. So, why yes if the day after the contract sign we decide to get rid of them it’s going to be very expensive and all likelihood the risk is very small and it’s only going to be because you bring it upon yourself. When I say ‘you’, I’m talking about the City. But just ask that vote on it up or down and they we have our direction and we know which way to go.

[Councilman Green called for the question, seconded by Councilman Lester. Motion denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilman Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 4. Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford and Green. 3.]

Councilman Carmody: Councilman Gibson, allow to recognize Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: I wanted to do two things. First one to ask Councilman Lester a question and then second just make a statement. I think when Councilman Lester was speaking he suggested as I thought was the case, that what we are talking about is terminating without cause. That we could terminate any time with cause; is that correct?

Councilman Lester: That’s correct.

Councilman Jackson: At no cause because that is just business. Is that correct.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Jackson: And that is what I thought. This is saying we can’t decide to get up one day and say, ‘well Hilton, you know they didn’t sponsor or downtown festival, so forget them.’ And we can’t pay without getting – so I thought it was an issue of terminating without cause.

Secondly, as Councilman Hogan says and I’m sorry I won’t be there tomorrow to help turn the dirt but everybody is going to be excited about starting. We got contracts signed but we are going look very silly when we have a convention center built and we got to wait another year to recruit any convention because it going to take us another year to finish getting the hotel built.

And I just think that we have to make some decision right now so that we can move forward with this process. To delay may not be to deny but it is certainly not to help and so I want to suggest to this Council as well that we move forward today and make a decision.

Councilman Gibson: I just have a couple or at least one question of the Administration. You have a five person board. Is that correct?

Mayor Hightower: That’s correct.

Councilman Gibson: Ya’ll make decisions arbitrarily for whatever reasons based on that five member board. I guess, why is that board coming back to this council body asking for assistance other than if it is money? If it is money why couldn’t the City extend some kind of loan or something of that nature. But the fact being is, my concern gentlemen and I just expressed this to my colleague, right, wrong or indifferent everything is based on history and experience. Right, wrong or indifferent we have had a 3-year delay on the convention center. Right, wrong or indifferent we have had some problems with Independence Stadium that are still unresolved in terms of legalities. Right, wrong or indifferent we have had problems with the Entertainment District of which is now--and I would have to agree with my colleague, Councilman Hogan--we will never see that $5,000,000 dollars.

And again, we are up here as fiducial responsible people and we are asking for some clarification and I appreciate and this is no doubt on our attorneys and again, people work for people and I understand that but when we cast votes up here we are held accountable of how money is spent. And there is a history right now of projects that have had problems for one reason or another. And, again, I think it is well documented whether it be through the Shreveport Times the Forum Magazine, Fax-Net Update, whatever, it is well documented that we have had some problems in the past.

And, for me to sit up here – I can tell you right now, unless this Administration and that five person board is prepared to come talk to each one of us about what their intent is on this thing, I can’t support this on the face value that again we are committing taxpayer dollars that again, I have no input from my constituents on this issue.

Yes, I am unequivocally supportive of the Shreveport Hotel, was on that Convention Center Task Force when it first came with the Bo Williams Administration went with the Hightower Administration, but right now if we don’t do our due diligence, history has shown us on three projects that we have had major problems.

And I don’t want to get into another situation as a representative in District D of having another problem without looking at my constituency, we did our due diligence and I don’t know why – there shouldn’t be a combative issue. There should be Administration come forward, share with us why your five person board is asking for this assistance and if it is some kind of dollar amount that you are wanting to see to carry you through, I heard the analogy that Ken Antee gave and the fact that his daughter didn’t have credit lines and stuff of that nature, I understand that. But I’m saying –

Mr. Antee: Obviously not because that is the exact scenario, Councilman Gibson.

Councilman Gibson: Well, I do understand that but at the same time there ought to be something more than that in the fact for me to be able to justify my vote on this thing and for me to ask for additional information and a delay to get that information.

Again, you have known that we have had concerns about this from day one and I’m still confused and when I get confused, I have a tendency not to want to vote for something.

Mr. Antee: First of all Councilman Gibson, with all due respect, this has been on the agenda for over a month, you have never asked me one single question about it.

We have explained it on a couple of occasions. I explained it again today. It doesn’t take a lawyer to figure it out. It is in pretty simple terms. It’s a guarantee in the event the Hotel Trust cannot pay.

The reason the HRI wants the guarantee from the City is because the Hotel Trust has no assets. So a guarantee from a shell corporation is worth nothing and that’s the only purpose.

If you are against it, vote against it. It’s that simple. We have go a plan. We presented to ya’ll what the best business approach is. If the Council doesn’t want to do that then we are prepared to sign the management agreement that they requested with a no termination for convenience clause and get on down the road. So we just ask to vote it up, vote it down. We are not going to leave here mad or upset because we are going to build the hotel, either way. We are just trying to do it in the smartest way, long term for the taxpayers of Shreveport.

Mayor Hightower: I would like to throw in a two bit response as well to Councilman Gibson in terms of the stadium having problems and the convention center having problems and the Red River District having problems, all of those statements have been true as is the case with any large project.

This Administration five years ago could have sat on its hands and we would not have a new stadium, and we would not have a Bowl game coming up this December that featured the Big 12 and the SCC. We could have sat on our hands and not done what we think we should do and what the entertainment venue and the tourist venue who happen to be a huge part of our economy have suggested we do and that’s add to what casinos bring to this community.

We could have sat on our hands and not gone to the voters and not ask for a convention center that would again, do the same thing for tourism in the City of Shreveport. We could have sit on our hands and not suggested a hotel that would have spelt doom for the convention center and also Councilman Gibson, would have probably spelt doom for a lot of the people you represent, the AGC members. We refuse to sit on our hands.

And you are right, this shouldn’t be a combative issue and if there is any member of the Council that should be in full support of construction projects, it ought to be you. Why you are not and why you are combative and have been so combative over the past two months is beyond me.

But I refuse to sit back and the Chief Administrative Officer of the City and sit on my hands and not move this city forward over the next three years of this term. If you can’t vote for the project or anything that we suggest, vote no. Vote no.

Councilman Gibson: No one has ever said that this administration hasn’t sat on their hands, they have done something. This is about planning.

Mayor Hightower: Proper planning.

Councilman Gibson: Proper planning. And again, history shows us the planning might be a little suspect and that’s the reason that I brought those issues to the table, Mr. Mayor.

And no, it hasn’t been a combative mode. I think it is our role as a City Council to be a check and balance for city government and this City Councilman – I think I have talked to other councilmen up here, we feel that we are a check and balance with city government and we have our elected right to ask the Administration certain questions and ask that--sometimes the Administration volunteer information without having to ask for those certain things. So, this City Councilman has never been anti-growth, anti-planning, anti-construction, business or anything.

Again, there is a history there that shows that if you jump the gun and you don’t do some things here in the Council, I think we got the biggest cross section of talent in quite sometime in a variety of industries that are deeply concerned about where we are going and obviously I have been on record, not only for the convention center but also the convention center hotel but in a proper planned type process.

Mayor Hightower: To suggest that there is no plan in place is foolish, at best. We didn’t get to where we are today with no planning, not only on the part of this Mayor and this Council and the prior council and outside help from engineers consultants, attorneys, accountants, bond people, just about from every field you can suggest, there has been a tremendous amount of planning that has gone on and at some point as Councilman Jackson suggested, we have got to act.

We can sit around and study and study and study and study things to death and never accomplish anything but it is my understanding from the constituents in this city that they want to see things happen and they want to see them happen now. I personally want to be able to take advantage of the good economic times three years from now when I leave office and I hope that each and every one of you do and I feel – I’m certain of that.

But we can’t be afraid to make decision and we can’t study things to death. You know, we called for a legislative audit. They have come in and they have looked and have looked and have looked and there are no smoking gun.

Last week you asked for an Attorney General’s Opinion to overrule the City Attorney’s Opinion, you know. What’s next, the Supreme Court? I don’t know but let’s just make a decision and if your decision is "no" Councilman, vote "no". I can live with that. I’m not mad. I won’t get mad. We have been friends. We will continue to be friends. I respect your job. I respect what each one of you have to do. I sat there for 8 years but I don’t think that it is necessary for us to be combative and challenge each other on every issue that comes about to move this city forward.

If it is politics, it’s your political career, just say it. Say I want to be the mayor and let’s get on with it, but let’s do what we have to do to move this City forward. And again, I refuse to let anybody stand in the way of moving this city forward. I have live here all my life. I’m going to live here the rest of my life and I want my kids to do the same and I hope you do. I hope each one of you do and I suspect that you do.

But let’s just make a decision and if you can’t vote for something because you don’t think we planned or you don’t like me or don’t like the idea, vote "no".

Councilman Lester: I would like to get us back on point. This resolution comes down to one issue. This resolution is about " WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Management Agreement, if the Management Agreement is terminated for any reason other than default. . . ," which is to say that if we decide or whoever is the mayor or whoever is on the Convention Center Hotel Authority decides to terminate the contract for any other reason than for cause – if we decide to terminate this contract on a whim then I’m sorry, we should pay because that is the nature of business.

Many of us are up here on business. If you terminate a real estate contract, there are treble damages. If you terminate a construction contract there are delay damages and other damages. This is not something that is new to any of us, that is what this is about. If you believe that you should not have to pay those damages if in fact we terminate this contract without cause on a whim then you need to vote your conscience. But at the end of the day this is not about what the Mayor says; this is not about what is happening over there; this is about whether or not whoever sits there next, decides to terminate a legally binding contract that has been entered into by the City, by the Convention Authority and a reputable business in a legal manner, if you decide to terminate a contract on a whim, who is going to have to pay. Are your going to have to pay?

All us up here are in business in one way shape, form, or another and we know if you have somebody to terminate a contract on a whim there are going to be damages, period. That’s just business. And the message that we need to send to this community is, we are not going to do things on a whim anymore. We are going to plan them. We are going to follow the course and we are going to do what we say we are going do. And if we decide that we are going to terminate this on a whim then yes, yes, we should pay damages because if the shoe was on the other foot in any of our businesses, if someone that we entered into a contract, you are going to get upset. You are going call me or any other lawyer in the city and you are going to go to court and you are going to win because that is in a contract, period. It is not that complicated.

And we don’t need to wait. We have gotten an opinion from our Assistant City Attorney. We have had an opinion from the CAO is an attorney whether you trust is opinion or not. You got an opinion from a Councilman that’s an attorney, okay. If we want to pay someone they are going to tell you the exact same thing. If you are going to terminate a contract without cause you are going to have to pay. That’s not HRI law. That is basic contract law that they teach you the first year of law school and that’s not going to change.

There is no need for us to delay this. Let’s vote on it and let’s move on because to do otherwise would be to enter into a situation because the flip side of it is this. If you enter into a contract that you cannot terminate, how fiscally responsible am I going to be if I enter into a contract for 20 years with someone that I can’t terminate at all?

[Councilman Green called for the question, seconded by Councilman Jackson and unanimously approved.]

Councilman Gibson withdrew his substitute motion to postpone.

Resolution passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Green and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilman Carmody, Gibson, and Walford. 3.

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.

Amendment No. 1:

Amend the resolution as follows:

Delete the resolution as introduced and substitute the attached resolution.

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green for adoption of Amendment No. 1 (as of 12 05 03).

Councilman Lester: This is something that we have dealt with for quite some time. We made different comments and different arguments at different times. At our last meeting or two meetings ago, we stopped this process for the purpose of getting counsel, counsel from PACE, counsel from the City so we craft a resolution that everyone, I believe could live with and I think that is what we’ve done. We’ve met with representatives from PACE, we’ve met with some outside counsel that has been provided by the City Attorney’s Office and the City Attorney has played a part in looking at this amendment.

This is something that I think we need to do. I think this issue is about and I’ve said this from the beginning, this issue is not about dollars, it is about dignity. I had the opportunity on last week to ride with members of the Department of Operational Services and the Sanitation Department and I must say that it was very, very instructive. Those gentlemen clock in at 6:30/6:45, many times it is dark, it is cold and they go out and they do, what I know is a very hard job and I know this because I did it and it wasn’t just a drive-by type situation. I spent four hours out there. I spent one hour with them in the MLK area. I spent 1 hour in North Highlands. I spent 1 hour in Cherokee Park. Those guys and ladies do a very difficult job, a very thankless job and they have a tremendous amount of pride in what they do and the Sanitation workers are representative of all the city employees that are here today, whether you are talking about the men and women in Operational Services, you are talking about people in Water and Streets and Drainage. They work hard to help this City go. They work hard to make us look good each and every day and what they are asking for is, respect. They are asking for the dignity that should be afforded them by their hard work.

I was just, to say the very least, applauded by some of the things that they have to put on the trash trucks, that I put on the trash trucks to be quite honest with you. In the 3 hours I put televisions, floor model television, computers, box springs, sofas, televisions, I mean anything that was on the street, they picked up and we picked up and they do it irrespective of any ordinance that is out there. These guys and ladies work hard, and have worked hard, many of them for 20 years, 13 years because they have a tremendous amount of pride in what they do. It is honest work, it is good work and I think that we should recognize them for that.

So, I would just ask my colleagues to look within themselves, look at the work that these men and women do on a daily basis, look at the pride in which they have and lets vote to give them what I think they deserve, recognition and let us move forward.

I know that there was some comments that by moving forward on this particular document that we are going to put ourselves backing ourselves into a collective bargaining type situation and without talking about collective bargaining, this amendment is very specific that says that nothing in the context of this amendment will confer collective bargaining. As a matter of fact, it says it twice and so I think that it is very clear that that is not what we are doing.

So, I think should resolve many of the hesitancy, many of the problems that some of our Council men have and at the end of the day we are just asking you to recognize these men and women and give them what they deserve, the dignity and respect so I would ask that my colleagues would vote for this amendment and lets move forward.

Councilman Jackson: I couldn’t avoid the temptation to ask about 4 hours on the truck.

Councilman Lester: Okay.

Councilman Jackson: You named 3 different neighborhoods and Councilman Carmody said, he wondered if you take a lunch in the 4^th hour or were you tired after the 3 hours?

Councilman Lester: I can answer that very easily. That is a job that you would have to pay me a heck-of-a-lot more than you pay them to do, I can say that with all honesty. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, I was whooped for at least 2 days. I didn’t show it at the time because I had to show a brave face but you can rest assured that after I showered, I was pretty much shut down for at least 2 days.

Councilman Jackson: I wondered who the guy was in the paper who was interviewed who said, looked like he hadn’t walked in a long time.

Councilman Lester: I hadn’t Mr. Chairman and I dare say, I hope never have to walk like that again.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Lester in all seriousness, in reading the explanation for the amendment to this particular ordinance there was a section that talked about the requirement and I think you spoke to the collective bargaining issue, that nothing in this resolution would confer collective bargaining upon PACE, but there is another sentence that talks about requirement for a confidential card check to confirm overall majority support of PACE and its local 4-25 in the above described unit by a panel of religious leaders mutually selected by PACE and the City Council to be conducted no later than January 15, 2004.

Two things, maybe you can speak to a. is the card check necessary because they are looking again, because it is exclusive representation first and b. secondly, I don’t know how we arrived at the panel of religious leaders and I guess how they are to be selected says, mutually selected.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Jackson: But can you talk about that, briefly, if you will.

Councilman Lester: Sure I’ll speak to that and I think they might have a representative that might speak to that, but as my appreciation is, the purpose of the check is like you stated before was to say to determine what their numbers are to confirm that they have majority support. And in terms of the religious leaders, there was some conversation that members of PACE and their representatives had about who that they could select to be a neutral body to kind of look and check those cards. And so the idea that they had was if they came up with a panel of religious leaders, a group of people, men and/or women that would not have anything to benefit or gain from the determining how many members that there were, in fact members of the organization and it would just be a question of checking the card, yes this person is a member, doing a tally. So it would be done in such a way it would be persons doing it that don’t have a financial or any other ethical interest in the outcome of the check. But I think that they have an attorney, Mr. Robine and if I might call him forward, he might be able to speak to that question.

Mr. Louis Robine (firm of Robine, Youbee and Mouree): We are Labor Attorneys, our office is out of Metarie and we practice statewide. We represent PACE as well as just about of the private sector, labor organizations in Louisiana.

The concept of a card check comes from both traditional labor relations practice and actual case that arose out of Baton Rouge. It deals with the question of, I think one of the Councilmen raised the question of exclusivity. If you are going to grant exclusivity in terms of contract representation or just general representation to any labor organization, there must be objective evidence that, that labor organization represents the majority case is, the supposing case was actually tried by then lawyers that represented Woody Jenkins that was challenging the minority status of a union in the what was then the Department of Highways. The union truly represented less than 10% of the workforce but was attempting to negotiate conditions or represent employees on an overall basis, when in fact it was not a majority representative.

Card check is used in the private sector. It has been used in the public sector in Louisiana and throughout the southeast. There are two methods, either by election which is quite expensive conducted by AAA or the Federal Mediation (inaudible) Service or a card service conducted by a panel of neutrals generally ministers and/or priests or a combination mutually selected where they check, they check the cards, the confidential authorization cards against a payroll or sets of payrolls certified by the Department or the City Administration. And if the union represents the majority in the overall described unit, which is in the 3^rd paragraph, the 3^rd WHEREAS paragraph of this resolution it is the majority representative. It is a way of legitimizing a relationship that is not governed as it is say in Florida or other states where there is a collective bargaining statute or whether it is the United States of America with respect to the private sector there is a formal process. This is done by local legislative action and it protects the constitutional rights of the individuals that are affected by this and it gives legitimacy to what you’ve done or may do.

Councilman Jackson: Again and maybe you can help with the issue of exclusivity, will and I guess if it is exclusive, then as I appreciate it maybe through some conversations we have prior, that it must represent a certain percentage of eligible employees? Is that what this whole card check speaks to?

Mr. Robine: The question is whether it represents a simple majority.

Councilman Jackson: That’s the legal question when you have an exclusive representative, that he must represent a simply majority,

Mr. Robine: As I said, if it is under the national Labor Relations Act, if we are dealing with employees at General Motors or dealing with an AGC Contractor that was conducting an election or certifying or recognizing, there is a formal set of rules which the Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that there is only two laws in this land, there is a constitutional provision in this state and there is a statute that favors collective bargaining. There is actually a Constitutional provisions in the 1974 Constitution that favors collective bargaining in the public section.

The implementation of that is left to the local legislative and executive bodies and the Supreme Court has said, that you can do it in a hundred different ways. And, all I’m suggesting what we proposed in this and what PACE is proposing is this is a time honored method of establishing majority status. It protects us, it protects the employees that are represented by us, and it protects you from getting from arbitrary lawsuits. But bear in mind that even though you have an exclusive representative whether it is at GM in the private sector or whether it is in, individual employees still have the constitutional right to redress their personal and individualized freedoms that can not be taken away.

Councilman Jackson: Sure. Mr. Barker, at one of our previous meetings, I don’t remember, it may have been two meetings ago you were here and we talked about, I think that, I don’t remember who it was, but you were charged to go and you all were going to reason together and to mesh out or flesh out (for lack of a better term) something that was amenable to everyone involved and there was going to be counsel participation and your side and their side and all of that, did that every take place?

Mr. Brice Barker: Not as you’ve described it. We have met. And I think the directive to me from the Council was perhaps different than what you described, which was to go meet. I don’t have the authority to work out or mesh out anything.

We went to discuss as ordered and there was counsel participation. Mr. Robine was there and he has drafted this resolution; so, that’s what has happened.

I have not participated in the drafting of that resolution nor have I been asked to.

Councilman Jackson: Were you there?

Councilman Lester: Yes.

Councilman Jackson: Just you?

Councilman Lester: Yes. Well, I was there and Councilman Gibson was there.

Councilman Jackson: When you all were there, is this what when we charged them to go out and work this thing out and bring us something that would be palatable to all of us, is this what you all came up with in your group and fleshed out?

Councilman Lester: Sure. I can answer that question. What happened, this represents that process, Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: It does.

Councilman Lester: What I stated earlier that we sat and we met, we met in the City Attorney’s Office. As Mr. Barker said, he was present, Mr. Robine was present, myself, Mr. James Robinson was there, Councilman Gibson was there as the directive, the City Attorney was there. So, there was a discussion and Mr. Barker has adequately and accurately outlined his involvement in that process; so, there was conversation, there was some dialogue backwards and forth on some issues. There was a document that was prepared, that document has subsequently been amended, that’s why you have the amendment as of 12 05 and that is the document that we are asking for support from this Council.

Councilman Gibson: I believe my name was brought into it. I have to respond to that question. I was present. I do have a real issue with the amendment in the fact that AAA is the group that was mentioned by you Mr. Robine, that to bring inexperienced people into this process, I don’t think is fair to them. I understand it is a cost, that cost is the cost of doing business that PACE would incur and this issue, and I was not aware until over the weekend that this was inserted. I can’t support that particular aspect of this particular deal.

But, the other part was the exclusivity side of things, of which, again that was a very–one of the two elements that was discussed at our meeting a couple of weeks ago, exclusivity and then specific language dealing with wages, benefits and working conditions of which as I understand it from Mr. Barker in our meeting two weeks ago that question was asked of him point blank, is that an open ended collective bargaining? And I think your response was, yes. Is that correct, Mr. Barker?

Mr. Barker: As a practical matter, yes. We have to talk about collective bargaining in the legal sense, Mr. Robine has addressed some of that as opposed to the vernacular.

When you have a collective bargaining representative, you do have a duty to bargain in good faith an dif you don’t do that, there can be legal remedies brought against you. But looking at what you have here, practically first, we have to start this conversation the same way I started every conversation with anybody I’ve had on this issue. And that is, what has been told to me over and over and what PACE has said they want, is the same status as the Police and Fire and every time I’ve said that, nobody has said, I’m wrong. So, if they are asking for the same status, they already have that and if you pass anything to give them any kind of official recognition you are giving them something different from what they’ve asked for. But look at the resolution as it exists now: you will meet and confer with the exclusive representative about working issues, work issues.

Councilman Gibson: Is that collective bargaining?

Mr. Barker: As a practical matter, what are you going to talk about?

Councilman Gibson: I don’t know, but is that collective bargaining as it written right now?

Mr. Barker: It is not legal collective bargaining. As a practical matter, you probably have it because you are going to sit down with the Mayor as the exclusive representative to talk about–you are obviously going to talk about wages, that’s been in the paper. Wages, hours, terms of conditions of employment and there is a phrase in there about, if sufficient funds are there to make these resolution. So it is clearly you are going to be sitting down talking about these things which is what you do at collective bargaining sessions.

Councilman Gibson: And let me go back to your comment just a second ago that no one on this body had responded to your comment about, they have that same status. Could I ask, I’m a little bit slow up here and a little bit ignorant to this fact, could somebody either the Chair or the Administration address that particular situation in the fact that on whether they have status or don’t have status regarding equal representation just like the Police and Fire.

Mayor Hightower: Our commitment is the same today that it has been all along: I welcome organization by the folks that are currently in PACE, certainly welcome the elected representation that they have. It makes my job a whole lot easier to have someone that I can sit down with and talk about working conditions or wages or whatever without having to enter into any formal collective bargaining. We do that currently with the head of the Firefighters Association and the head of the Police Association and I think you can ask firefighters and police, has it worked over the past however many years, long before my time and I think they get a lot of what they want, they get a lot of attention, and I think it is a good thing, but I don’t think that collective bargaining and anything more than Fire and Police currently receive is good business for the City and that has been our stance all along and continues to be. And again I welcome organization, welcome the meetings, welcome to try to come to resolution and policy changes if that is what it takes to address some of the concerns that this class of workers happen to have.

Councilman Gibson: So, Mr. Mayor, in terms of PACE right now coming to you and sitting down and talking about because, I need to make this clear and Councilman Lester and I had a conversation about this the other day, that there seem to be a recurring theme on grievances that our city employees have and how those grievances are resolved. And, I’ve heard from department heads, I’ve heard from your side of things, that you feel that those things are being resolved but at the time we’ve heard testimony after testimony of our city employees who say, they don’t’ feel like they are being resolved and then that raises the question in my mind, anytime you have disgruntled employees and there is a disconnect either on our side or their side, there is still a disconnect. And I guess I’m wrestling with the fact that if we still have working conditions out there or grievances that aren’t being resolved, how do we as a City find a way to resolve that issue and again, I mean, that is what they pay you the big bucks and pay the Administration to do their thing, and ya’ll do a great job of that but somewhere I keep hearing a disconnect here so I am asking for again and I know we’ve gone through this for what, 6 or 8 weeks now but I still have not gotten and clear in my mind, how we resolve that. Is one first, you have met with PACE from time-to-time?

Mayor Hightower: Yes.

Councilman Gibson: And with those meetings, has resolutions come about with some of the problems that they have brought to your attention?

Mayor Hightower: Yeah, I think several of the issues, some as small as not enough water on the trucks. I mean, there are going to be things that come about that are simple to take care of. Are paying increases simple to take care of? Absolutely not or is every grievance going to be satisfied by the complainant, absolutely not but it is not in any company. But what all the workers do have, they are all classified. There is an appeal process that goes through the Personnel Department on any grievances, it is heard and it can be ultimately appealed to the CAO and I’m not sure exactly how many of those go that far, but there is a process for any employee that feels like they have been mistreated or abused or they are unhappy with whatever to go up the chain until the get all the way to the CAO so. Is everybody going to be satisfied when the CAO is finished? Absolutely not

Councilman Gibson: As I understand it, I don’t think we have all of our police and fire, that are always are satisfied in discussions with the Mayor’s Office, that is just human nature. You are always going to have certain things out there. I guess, Mr. Chair, indulge me here for a second. Is James Robinson still the President of PACE?

Mayor Hightower: That is my understanding.

Councilman Gibson: Could I ask him just a couple of questions real quick. Mr. Robinson, you’ve had meetings with the Mayor, correct?

Mr. Robinson: I have meetings with the Mayor and some department heads.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, you’ve met with the Mayor. Have you brought specific issues to his attention?

Mr. Robinson: There have been specific issues brought to his attention. Like the Mayor said, some small, some minor, some in the middle, some that haven’t gotten to him yet; some that we are still in the process in, some that were resolved, some that were not resolved.

Councilman Gibson: But that is always going to be work in progress. So, there has never been a denial by PACE or by the Mayor’s Office for PACE to sit down, you specifically and some others to sit down and talk with the Mayor about issues that pertain to the rank and file that you have currently, correct?

Mr. Robinson: No there has not, but the problem is in sitting down and what makes the difference is why we want recognition and be supported by our local and our international. It is one thing to sit down and meet with somebody when they have all the resources and you have nothing, nothing. When you can not in an instance like the meetings that we had here, have a representative or take in information and have it broken down ro dissected so that you can get a perfect understanding.

Councilman Gibson: Let me stop you right there. The same thing holds true, would you not agree with the Police and Fire. The Administration has all the resources in their. . . .

Mr. Robine: Can I answer that?

Councilman Gibson: Well, I’m trying to understand this process, gentlemen and again. . . yeah I’d like to hear, but I am going to ask also the Mayor that same question.

Mr. Robine: I don’t represent Police and Fire here, I represent Police and Fire in virtually every other jurisdiction in the state. What the City workers in this City do not have, what they don’t have in New Orleans, what they don’t have in Baton Rouge, unless they are protected by the collective bargaining agreements is with Fire—fire and police organizations have developed over the past 50 years because of their sophistication and their aggressiveness in Baton Rouge, because they are organized. They have a Firefighters Bill of Rights. They have a Police Bill of Rights, the have minimum wages, they have minimum conditions in writing in statute that have been constitutionalized. These workers don’t have that because they don’t organization.

Yes, this is the beginning. You deal with unions and you know what it means. Half of it is mystical. It is just a concept. When workers know that they have an organization that backs them and they go with the Mayor or they come before you, they have meaning and they can get something accomplished as Fire and Police do.

Fire and Police have a representative on their Civil Service Board by state law and by Constitution. They have a representative on their Pension Board; these folks don’t have that. It is all unilateral. This enters the concept of bilateralism into the process. It gives them credence, it gives them a voice. It does not give them collective bargaining. It states clearly that this is subject to future legislation. There is nothing wrong with collective bargaining. It is favored by your state constitution. It is favored as a means of resolving labor relations and you are either for it or you are against and it is favored by federal law, and that is why we are here.

We understand and the Mayor has acted in good faith and this organization is acting in good faith and we are asking for essentially a costless but spiritually important and philosophical important resolution that gives this organization recognition.

And I can expand a little further, I know you acted in good faith when you voted for that resolution that would recognize that organization as a sole and exclusive manager of the hotel project, well that is big bucks, that is big bucks. We are just asking for one (inaudible). This Administration wanted that because they want to deal with a representative that’s on the line and is committed to performing a service. This organization will perform that service. They will represent these employees and release some of the headaches that the Mayor refers to.

This organization has the responsibility like every other later organization that I deal with and that you deal with that maybe 6, 7 out of 10 grievances do not have merit. This organization has to exercise or will exercise leadership and tell its own membership ‘this has merit’, ‘this doesn’t.’ ‘We are not going to go to the Mayor on this one.’ ‘You are wrong.’ Instead of having people come to the Mayor and go over and over and over that, it helps. The process does work. It works in many, many other cities and it works around this country and that is why we are here and we just ask the passage of this resolution.

Mr. Robinson: I would just like to clear up one thing, Mr. Brice–from my membership and my local, Mr. Brice Parker stated when he started this conversation, smokey mirrors and red herrings, that it was his understanding that what we asked for was to be just like the Fire and Police. We have never asked for that.

We have always stated that there was a difference in Fire and Police, that we were asking for recognition of our organization as themselves. Maybe he was prepped with this by whoever is paying, signs his check, but we never made any such statement that we wanted to be just like Fire and Police and that is all we wanted out of the deal.

We want recognition and the right to make choices and decisions that pertain to our own destiny. We live, we work here, and we pay taxes here, and we just want a level playing field.

The Mayor is doing his job. I am not going to fault the Mayor. But we must understand here today the Mayor was elected to run this City. He hired a management team, just like in the corporation, their job is to run the city day-to-day and if they can save money, cut the cost whatever they can do, that’s their job to do. Just like in the private sector, the more you save, if you save money, then you get a bonus–that’s how they all got raises last year. They saved a lot of money and they get bonuses just like in the private sector. And I’m not jumping on him, that is the way business works. We were talking about how business is business. But he was elected to run this City and the people that he run—you were elected to watch. He was elected to run. He’s going to do his best not to recognize. He is going to do his best and his managers are going to do their best to cut whatever they can cut without (inaudible) it is the bottom line. Your job was to watch out for the citizens of the city of Shreveport, watch out and be stewards for the health, the welfare of those who live, work here, and pay taxes here, and vote here and we are those people.

Mr. Barker: Mr. Robinson, I’d invite you if you listen to the transcript of the last City Council meeting where this came up and you will hear yourself on their say that all you want is what Fire and Police want, you want that same thing. I challenge you to do that. And if I’m wrong, I challenge you to bring me a copy of that transcript to that because I heard you say it. The other thing is–let me finish.

Councilman Lester: Point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Point of Order. Point of Order.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Barker. Mr. Barker, one second.

Mr. Barker: You say you want dignity and respect (inaudible)

Mr. Robinson: I apologize if I hurt your feelings in anyway.

Mr. Barker: I think it is some important things to say about what we’ve just heard. Mr. Robine made the comment and some powerful statements about people having a voice, they have that voice already, the Mayor has told you that. They may not like what the Mayor tells them, but just like in a lawsuit, 50% of the people who live the court room don’t like the result. Just because they don’t like the result doesn’t mean the process doesn’t work.

These employees have a Personnel Board, it is very similar to the one the Fire and Police have. It is appointed members, they have an appeal to that if they are terminated or disciplined . It is a very similar sit—they may not like the process, but the process is there.

The other part of Mr. Robine’s comments talked about collective bargaining. So, do they want collective bargaining or do they not want collective bargaining, I’m not sure, I hear different things. And so, I think the Council needs to look. First of all, we have this directive to me, ya’ll go write something that is agreeable to everybody. I don’t know what you want. You tell me to write something, but you don’t tell me what you want it to say, that’s the backwards way. Usually you go to a lawyer and say, ‘I’ve reached this agreement with somebody, putting it in writing.’ I can do that but to try to read your minds and come up with something that is agreeable, I can’t do that. And so starting from the same premise, what is it they want? If you can identify that, I can tell you whether this document gives it to them.

Councilman Lester: For the record, to take the last at the beginning, the first thing that Mr. Barker said was after this deal is done, everything, the arguments, this side, that side, what I heard came out of his mouth and I would defy him to change anything else and go to the tape, he said: ‘this is not legally collective bargaining.’ Is that your opinion?

Mr. Barker: That’s what I said.

Councilman Lester: Okay, that this resolution does not, is not legally collective bargaining.

Mr. Barker: Well, lets look at --what does it do? What does it give them?

Councilman Lester: Counsel, let me ask you. I’ll ask you a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. We do this.

Mr. Barker: Sure.

Councilman Lester: Is this legally collective bargaining?

Mr. Barker: No, and I’ve told you that but as a practical you’ve got something that looks very much like it, very much like it.

Councilman Lester: But it is not, you and I don’t deal on what it looks like. You and I deal in legalities, right?

Mr. Barker: Not always.

Councilman Lester: Okay. Alright, that’s fine. But your legal opinion is that this document is not legally collective bargaining. Is it not? Isn’t that a true statement?

Mr. Barker: Legally defined collective bargaining where you are talking about the legal definition, this is not. In the vernacular if you put. . .

Councilman Lester: We don’t deal with---I asked you a legal question.

Mr. Barker: If you put the situation in this resolution side-by-side with one that is legally collective bargaining, most of the people in this room couldn’t tell the difference.

Councilman Lester: But in a court of law, in a court of law, the question is not what it looks like, not what it smells like, not what it tastes like, not what it feels like, is it legally collective bargaining. And your response is. . .

Mr. Barker: It is not but we are not in a court room. We are in the real world.

Councilman Lester: Okay, this is not legally collective bargaining.

Mr. Barker: That is correct, I told you that.

Councilman Lester: Well, if we know from my perspective that it is not legally collective bargaining and Mr. Barker says it is not legally collective bargaining and Mr. Robine says it is not legally collective bargaining then it is not legally collective bargaining and everything that has been said as to what it looks like, it takes like, it feels like, it walks like, it talks like, is irrelevant.

And let me say this also, you and I both know that if this issue was litigated, there is a whole idea of going to legislative intent and the legislative intent as expressed in this document says (and I’m going to quote because I want to be accurate) that "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that nothing in this resolution will confer upon PACE collective bargaining. It is the expressed intent of this resolution to recognize PACE and authorize them to speak for City employees provided the conditions previously outlined have been met. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any collective bargaining issue or discussion will require separate legislative action by the City Council." That is unequivocal, that is clear, that is to use our term, bright line that our legislative intent is not to confer collectively bargaining.

And now when you put the fact that we have expressed our legislative intent that we are not doing collective bargaining and the fact that it is legally not collective bargaining, I think you do everyone in this room and everybody watching on t.v. a disservice to say, that we are talking about collective bargaining, Mr. Barker.

Mr. Barker: I’ve not said that. But if it is not collective bargaining, how is it different from what the Mayor already has given you?

Councilman Lester: I’ll turn the question around. If it is the same, then what is your hesitancy?

Mr. Barker: It is because you are acting in taking official action to make the Mayor, by resolution, sit down and talk about wages, hours and conditions of employment, okay and he has to do that. And if there is money there, what is the resolution say, okay.

Where do we go with all of this? The Mayor sits down. They eventually going to talk about wages and it is going to be real fast, the newspapers made that clear. They are going to ask the Mayor for a wage increase, the Mayor will have his response, we don’t know what it will be. But, if it is not an unequivocal ‘yes’ there is going to be a gap, right.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Mr. Barker: Between what they are asking for and what he is demanding. How do you bridge that gap?

Councilman Lester: Well let me ask this question.

Mr. Barker: There is only a few ways.

Councilman Lester: Wait a minute, Mr. Barker.

Mr. Barker: No 1 they can say, okay fine we ask for it, we didn’t get it. The other way is, they can ask again.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Mr. Barker: Or they can negotiate back and forth, but eventually there is an impasse and there is only two ways to deal with an impasse: you accept it, maybe grudgingly so or you strike.

Councilman Lester: So let me ask this question. If you presume to read the minds of PACE, but you could not read the minds of the people that were in the room, are you a mind reader now or a mind reader, later? I don’t understand that.

Mr. Barker: I don’t have to read their minds, they have been in the papers saying this.

Councilman Lester: Okay. It just seems that you know what their intent is and you know how the negotiations are, so you say, are going to take place but when it comes down to, what do they want, you can’t codify what they want.

Mr. Barker: Nobody has told me what they want.

Councilman Lester: Well, Mr. Barker, you and I. . . .

Mr. Barker: I’ve heard three or four different things about what they want, so.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Barker, listen. You and I can do this. You are paid very well to do this. I am paid very well, to do this. We can run this bill up to hundreds of dollars an hour and go ad infinitum but the salient points are these: You, out of your own mouth said that this is not legally collective bargaining regardless of what it looked like, taste like or whatever.

You and I, and I’ve made it clear that the legislative intent in this resolution is not to confer collective bargaining and you and I both know that the federal statutes do not apply to the states, so you and I both know that there is no constitutional, there is jurisprudential hesitation or any prohibition for us doing what we are asking the Council to do. You know that and I know that and you have said that in meetings, and I recognize that because the J. D. that is on your wall, is the J. D. that is on my wall. You have Lexis Nexus, I have West Law. I mean, we know what the state of the law is. So, again, for us to get into this whole argument about what they want or what they might want or what the Police has or what the Fire Department has or what they might do, I mean, if you can’t read minds in a compressed state, I don’t think that you can read minds in a later date.

The issue is this, are we going to vote for this? Are we going to give these gentlemen what they ask for? I think it is very clear what they want because it is in the resolution. For us to try to bring in the 900-pound bogeyman and say "‘collective bargaining’, they are asking for collective bargaining, hide the women and children," I think does us a dis-service because at the end of the day this isn’t about collective bargaining. This is about the dignity that those men and women ask for. Now, if their Councilmen that say that they don’t want to vote for this, then I would say, don’t vote for it and lets move forward.

I would review and ask you and everybody else out there when this issue came up two meetings ago, I was not in favor of us sitting down going through this long process because in my mind if you are in favor of what these gentlemen were asking for, you would have voted on the first resolution. And I said, and I am going to quote myself, ‘don’t play with these people’s emotions’. If you are not going to vote for it, lets not waste two weeks, lets not waste a month, lets just say ‘no’ and move on. But we have taken the time, we’ve taken your time, we’ve taken my time but that is what I do, Mr. Robine has come from New Orleans, and we have in front of us a document that we can vote on that, again and I hate to sound repetitive that you out of your own mouth say, is not legally collective bargaining.

Now, the argument is, well, you know it is not very much different from what they already have. Well, if what they already have is not so bad then if this looks just like it then what is the hesitancy to give it? Especially when it is not legally collective bargaining. And I don’t see, and for us to do anything else is to go into circular reasoning. It is one of those things and you and I both know and Mr. Robine knows when the law is on your side, you argue the law. When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. When you don’t have either, you argue like hell and we are tired of arguing like hell.

There is no law that does not prevent this. There is no jurisprudential, there is no case that says, we can’t do this. So, at the end of the day, the question is, the seven us, do we want to do it or do we not want to do it. If we want to do it, lets do if not, lets do that and go on with it, but this issue of collective bargaining is a red herring, period. It is there it inject, to inflame, and to derail the issue of giving these guys what they’ve asked for.

And I think it is very clear what they’ve asked for because they spelled it out in the confines of this resolution; so, lets not muddy the water any further. This isn’t about collective bargaining because lawyer on the other side has said, this is not legally collectively bargaining.

Councilman Green: I don’t think that we ought to arguing our case with these gentlemen here because they can’t vote. I think what we ought to be doing is voting.

I mean, we can talk about what we know and what we do and whatever, ya’ll need to just sit down because it is not even going to be determined by ya’ll. We knew two weeks ago, a month ago, about this vote and if we don’t have all the information that we need now, we will never have it. We are the ones, we are the 7 that we ought to be talking to and we ought to talk before today. I mean, this is just entertainment right now; so, we could entertain for another hour. Councilman Jackson told me a minute ago, he said "I bet this is going to last for about an hour." We are going through an hour process, whereas it ought not–shouldn’t been but about five seconds because we already know how we are going to vote. It doesn’t matter if we get Johnny (What’s his name to come) it is going to be determined by this 7 up here and I just think, Mr. Chairman, that I’ll call for the question and I hope that I don’t have to second it myself [motion by seconded by Councilman Walford.

Councilman Lester: I’d like to offer a substitute motion.

Councilman Walford: We have a motion on the floor to end debate.

Councilman Carmody: To clarify, Mr. Thompson, once that motion is made, it has to be acted upon. Motion denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilman Lester, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 4. Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, and Green. 3.]

Councilman Lester: I have an amendment. Actually I’d like for us to table this and move on with the next item. I have an amendment that I have asked the City Council Staff to prepare, so I’d ask that we postpone this matter and move on to the next agenda item so that, long enough for me to get them to do the amendment. [Motion by Councilman Lester to postpone the matter until later in the agenda, seconded by Councilman Gibson. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Hogan. 1.]

I would like to ask that we adopt Amendment No. 2 of Resolution 178. That resolution deletes the language ‘a panel of religious leaders mutually selected by PACE and the City Council’ and In the first BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED paragraph, delete the words "a panel of religious leaders mutually selected by PACE and the City Council" and substitute the words "American Arbitration Association".

Amendment No. 2:

Amend the resolution as follows:

In the first BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED paragraph, delete the words "a panel of religious leaders mutually selected by PACE and the City Council" and substitute the words "American Arbitration Association".

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Jackson for adoption of Amendment No. 2. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: Councilman Walford. 1.

Amendment No. 1:

Amend the resolution as follows:

Delete the resolution as introduced and substitute the attached resolution.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green for adoption of Amendment No. 1.

Councilman Gibson: Amendment 1 is what?

Councilman Carmody: Amendment 1 appears ". . . to recognize PACE International Union and PACE Local 4-25 as the Exclusive Representative Agent for the City Employees and for the purposes stated herein, providing relative to resolution of employees issues" is the way it reads, gentlemen.

Councilman Gibson: There’s two amendments there, I’m a little confused here.

Mr. Thompson: It is the second amendment that is on your paperless agenda.

Councilman Lester: What we did was, the second amendment on the paperless agenda is the one that we were talking about before.

Procedurally, what we did was, we changed some language in this amendment so we have adopted this amendment to this, and now I want to adopt this amendment which is what we originally discussed.

Councilman Carmody: And Mr. Lester to clarify you are asking us now to consider on the electronic agenda what is noted "Amended a/o of 12 05 03"?

Councilman Lester: That is correct.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Gibson, I apologize. I actually read the wrong resolution.

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

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Jackson for adoption of resolution as amended.

Councilman Gibson: Before I cast my vote on this last deal that is based on my inability or the inability to show to me that we have been able to consistently resolve some of the problems that we have with some of our employees and that I am hoping that this will give the opportunity for those resolutions to come, not to fruition, but I want my vote to reflect that.

Councilman Hogan: Several things that I would like to touch on. This isn’t an issue that I have taken lightly. I understand that there is a lot of people’s integrity and dignity at stake here. I can honestly say that I have done my homework on this. I have met with people. I have spent literally hours through meetings with Mr. Robinson, with some of the workers, some of the familiar faces I see in this audience. Even though I voted against it back in the Spring, and I did some research at that point.

I talked to as Mr. Robinson recommended, I talked to a fellow in Monroe, a City Councilman over there where they have PACE as their representative and I had done some other research. I’ve never been a member of a union neither have I had a family member that’s a member of a union but I felt like this deserved some attention and research. And even though I voted against it back in the Spring, I have spent many more hours trying to figure out what is the right thing to do because, that’s what I was elected to do. I have no agenda up in this seat and I’m here to do the right thing. Most people in here don’t know me but that’s exactly what I want to do. I may only serve one term in this seat, but its going to be a term where I knew I can walk away and say I know I did the right thing and I did my homework.

And so some of the things I’d like to mention. First of all, I need to make a clarification from a Council meeting a month ago, where there was a misunderstanding. Councilman Lester had said that we had all voted, excuse me, not voted, but as we had campaigned last year that we all sat down with PACE representatives and signed a piece of paper, an agreement saying we would support their recognition, their organization and recognition and I was so shook up at the time, maybe I wasn’t paying attention as closely as I should, but I did research that and I found that I did meet with the Central Trades and Labor Union, with Roosevelt Smalley, which is a totally separate organization.

Mr. Cotton, I think I saw his face earlier, James Cotton he had called me, we had tried to meet during my campaign. I don’t recall the reason why we didn’t actually get to sit down and meet but I was willing at that point even in my campaign to sit down and meet. But I just want it to be known because I try very hard to keep my word and as I had to demonstrate, about two months ago, Councilman Lester asked me to support something back in January, after we had just come on the Council, and I said I would in ignorance, was not understanding what I was saying and I had to go back and vote for something that I, after doing research on, I found like that I was not in favor of, that it was not the right thing to do but I did keep my word which is extremely important to me.

And so, some of the things that I would like to make sure that everybody knows is that I have not signed an agreement with PACE and when I was campaigning a year ago but I have indeed given this the recognition and attention it deserves.

And again, any time I’ve been asked to have a meeting with someone, I have met with them. I didn’t discover until last Council about the raise issue. I was in question over that. I had some comments and then in some of my meetings I was told by some of the workers that they had not had a raise in a number of years ranging from 5 to 11 years and I found out that this was not true. That I again, since last Council meeting verified this with Mr. Dark that in the Year 2003, 93% of the Classified Workers have had pay raises. I wanted to make sure of that, that was important to me it is a big issue and it is going to come up.

As Mr. Barker mentioned a little while ago, I read it in the paper where one of the workers said that eventually, it will come up. I know you haven’t denied that but eventually, I think, very soon, that it would come up.

I just want to say that I have given this careful consideration. There is a lot at stake here and it has been a tough decision, I just want to say that, that it is not something that I’ve taken lightly.

And I’ve decided that—and also I want to mention that I appreciate you, Mr. Robinson, you sent me all of the people I asked for, last Council meeting, all the phone numbers and the names of the people and I asked for and you did supply me with that information. I have talked to some of these people, some would not return my phone calls, a couple were sick. There was one wrong number but I have spoken to these people and I’ve gotten opinions that range anywhere from, this is something good, it has worked good for us to, its been a disaster. People in Lake Charles, I spoke to, the guy that is the CAO Ken Wimberly, excuse, Ron Kimberley he told me, he gave me some valuable insight I thought. That he said, once we had formal contract with the city workers, just as we have heard some people say following that was the Fire and Police and now they have a formal agreement to be recognized with each of those three. And he said, that’s been years ago, and he has said the problem since then, when one gets one, a raise or something now the other file suit. He said there have been several instances where there have been lawsuits filed over somebody got something and the others didn’t get it and so that bears in mind too, that our own City Attorney has recommended that this wouldn’t be a good thing. I even consulted with him. I value Mr. LaFitte’s opinion and again, I won’t go into detail on some of the other research that I’ve done as far as the people that I’ve talked to, but when I push this button in just a minute, I want you to understand that it is not something that I’ve taken lightly, that I am prepared fully to vote today.

Resolution as amended passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Gibson, Green and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilman Walford, Carmody, and Hogan. 3.

[Motion by Councilman Walford seconded by Councilman Carmody to recess for 5 minutes unanimously approved.]

RESOLUTION NO. 178 OF 2003

A RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE PACE INTERNATIONAL UNION AND PACE LOCAL 4-25 AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE AGENT FOR THE CITY EMPLOYEES AND FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN, PROVIDING RELATIVE TO RESOLUTION OF EMPLOYEES ISSUES AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

BY: COUNCILMAN LESTER

WHEREAS, certain employees of the City of Shreveport have indicated a desire to be represented by a national labor organization with strong Louisiana roots, PACE International Union (PACE) and a local union affiliated with PACE, PACE Local 4-25; and

WHEREAS, PACE has provided the City with a verifiable showing of interest on the part of said employees; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that many efficiencies and enhancements in productivity could be achieved by recognizing PACE as exclusive representative of City employees in the following, but nonexclusive list of departments, boards and agencies: Department of Community Development (including Codes Department); Department of Finance; Shreveport Public Assembly and Recreation; Department of Operations Services; support staff of the Shreveport Police Department (including Records, Complaints and Juvenile Departments, but excluding commissioned officers); excluding supervisory employees at the level of "superintendent" and above and all appointed non-classified managers of said boards, departments and agencies.

WHEREAS, this determination is supported by favorable experiences with a unionized workforce in the cities of Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, and New Orleans.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport that the Mayor and City Council officially recognize PACE INTERNATIONAL UNION and PACE Local 4-25 as the exclusive representative agent for the above mentioned employees, and that the City agrees to meet and confer with the authorized representatives of PACE International Union, and the duly elected or appointed officials of PACE Local 4-25 to resolve employee workplace issues and to provide for equitable and peaceful adjustment of differences which may arise in the workplace, provided that funds are available, to protect and serve the public interest.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the interests of all parties be secured by a confidential "card check" to confirm overall majority support of PACE and its Local 4-25 in the above described unit by American Arbitration Association to be conducted no later than January 15, 2004.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that nothing in this resolution will confer upon PACE collective bargaining. It is the expressed intent of this resolution to recognize PACE and authorize them to speak for City employees provided the conditions previously outlined have been met.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any collective bargaining issue or discussion will require separate legislative action by the City Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City agrees to allow the duly elected or appointed officials of PACE Local 4-25 to resolve issues and represent its members in disciplinary or investigatory meetings within reasonable limits during working hours without loss of wages or benefits.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision of 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 declared repealed.

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.

WHEREAS, Resolution Number 29 of 2003 authorized the Mayor to execute a one (1) year agreement with Shreveport Redevelopment Agency ("SRA") and Shreveport Urban Renaissance Corporation, Inc. ("SURC"); and

WHEREAS, Paragraph 24 of the agreement authorized by Resolution Number 29 of 2003 provides that the agreement shall commence upon execution of the agreement by all parties; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the agreement to provide that the agreement shall be effective retroactive to January 1, 2003.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED 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 authorized to execute an amendment to the agreement between the City of Shreveport, Shreveport Redevelopment Agency and Shreveport Urban Renaissance Corporation, Inc., substantially in accord with the draft hereof filed for public inspection with the original of this resolution in the Office of the Clerk of Council on November 21, 2003.

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

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

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

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

WHEREAS, it is recommend that the City of Shreveport enter into Articles of Agreement - Changes to Utility Facilities with the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation & Development to relocate the water & sewer mains for the Jefferson Paige Rd. Widening & Realignment project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the City of Shreveport be allowed to enter into Articles of Agreement - Changes to Utility Facilities with State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation & Development for the water & sewer main relocation project.

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

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

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

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.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport Police Department desires to donate four Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, listed in Appendix "A" to the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office which serves a public purpose and renders a public service; and,

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

WHEREAS, the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office has agreed to accept all responsibility, financial obligations and liability associated with the acceptance of this donation; and,

WHEREAS, the equipment listed in Appendix "A" is in need of additional repairs and is no longer used by the Shreveport Police Department and is deemed surplus of the City of Shreveport; and,

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

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular, and legal session convened, that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Shreveport and the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office for the donation of the semi-automatic rifles listed in Appendix "A" effective December 9, 2003, substantially the same as the document filed in the Office of the Clerk of Council on November 21, 2003.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this Resolution which can be given affect 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 Gibson, seconded by Councilman Jackson passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

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

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport Fire Department desires to donate a utility trailer, listed in Appendix "A" to Louisiana Critical Stress Management, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation, which serves a public purpose and renders a public service; and,

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

WHEREAS, Louisiana Critical Stress Management, Inc. has agreed to accept all responsibility, financial obligations and liability associated with the acceptance of this donation; and,

WHEREAS, the utility trailer listed in Appendix "A" is unfit for its intended purpose (transportation of radio controlled robots) and is deemed surplus of the City of Shreveport; and,

WHEREAS, this donation under these circumstances provides for the most cost effective manner to dispose of the property, and will aid Louisiana Critical Stress Management, Inc. in the delivery of services to the Shreveport Fire Department.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due regular and legal session convened, that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Shreveport and Louisiana Critical Stress Management, Inc. for the donation of the utility trailer listed in Appendix "A" effective December 9, 2003, substantially the same as the document filed in the Office of the Clerk of Council on November 21, 2003.

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

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

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

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.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has contracted since 2000 with the Downtown Development Authority for parking systems management; and

WHEREAS, both parties wish to continue this contractual arrangement for an additional two years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute an agreement for parking systems management with the Downtown Development Authority, said agreement to be substantially in conformance with the original copy of the agreement provided to the Clerk of Council on November 21, 2003, with the original copy of this resolution.

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 Green, seconded by Councilman Carmody for passage.

Councilman Jackson: I think I see it, is the answer to the question that the City shall pay $408,000; is that correct?

Mr. Dark: Yes, sir.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 193 OF 2003

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2004 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROGRAM OF WORK AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Act 554 of 1978, which authorized the creation of the Downtown Development Authority, requires that a formal Program of Work for the DDA be adopted annually by the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the DDA has prepared and formally adopted its Program of Work for the year 2004 and recommended its approval by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that it approves the 2004 Downtown Development Authority Program of Work, as provided to the Clerk of Council with the original copy of this resolution on December 9, 2003.

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

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION:

1. Resolution 194 of 2003: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the City of Shreveport, Louisiana and Caddo Parish Fire District Number Nine and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read motion Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green for Introduction of the Resolution to lay over until the January 13, 2004 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Hogan, Gibson, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: None.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE:

1. Ordinance No. 157 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 Downtown Development District Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Walford adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

2. Ordinance No. 158 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 General Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorizing therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No.1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Taxes and Special Assessments by $930,000.

Decrease Licenses and Permits by $150,000.

Increase External Service Charges by $17,000.

Increase Fines and Forfeits by $125,000.

Decrease Miscellaneous by $500,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

In SPAR, decrease Other Charges by $27,000 and increase Improvements and Equipment by $47,000.

In General Government, increase Personal Services by $120,000. Decrease Transfer to Retained Risk by $1,437,100. Increase Transfer to Community Development by $20,000. Increase Operating Reserves by $222,000.

In Police, increase Personal Services by $1,437,100.

In Operational Services, increase Contractual Services by $6,000 and Improvements and Equipment by $27,000. Decrease Transfer to Fleet Services Fund by $10,000 and increase Transfer to Water and Sewerage Fund by $17,000.

Councilman Jackson: This amendment not only dealt with the $422 that was the net surplus of revenues, am I correct, but I see as the second paragraph it also dealt with the appropriation of the Pirates money, is that correct?

Mr. Dark: Actually, Sir that is No. 3.

Councilman Carmody: We are looking at No. 1.

Councilman Lester: It does.

Councilman Jackson: Well, maybe it doesn’t say on yours it says in addition this money will. . .

Mr. Dark: I’m sorry, No. 3 is the Pirates money. Excuse me.

Councilman Jackson: Alright. We talked yesterday about this and we talked about putting all of this money into the Police Department. I just wanted to know again, for a better degree of clarity what the deal was with offsetting the (inaudible) and somebody spoke yesterday of perhaps pending, I mean the possibility of a lawsuit and all those kind of things.

Mr. Dark: I’ll be glad to go through that. We have, for the last year we have not been paying the increased rates to either the Fire or the Police State Retirement system even though the LMA lawsuit was only against the Fire system. We have, at least so far, gotten victory on the Fire one however the Police system because there is no litigation against them, one way or the other, the Police system has done to us rather strongly for the additionally $120 or so thousand dollars a month that we are not paying them to the point where they are attaching our other state revenue and have a legal right to do so. So, our position was that we might as well go ahead and budget the increase, police contribution even through there is a chance that if the Fire suit is sustained on appeal that we may be back with not having to pay it all at some point but right now we are not going to get the money one way or the other. We are either going to pay them directly or they are going to take it out of the other money we get from the State, so we need to budget it to avoid penalties and interest and all of those kind of things, so that is why we chose to use the money the way we chose to use it.

Councilman Jackson: What do we know more this year than we did last year at this same time with reference to the Police situation?

Mr. Dark: We know we are not going to have to do Fire at least until some court reverses the trial court.

Councilman Jackson: So, from the Police perspective, pardon my perhaps oversimplification but from a police perspective, do we just have our fingers crossed?

Mayor Hightower: What happened on, the LMA decided (the Louisiana Municipal Association) decided to only take on one fare at a time and Fire was the one they picked. The Police they didn’t pick but seeing the success of Fire, I think Police is sure to follow. But like Mr. Dark said, the Police Retirement System as they are perfectly legal and capable of doing went to attack the revenue we receive from the State Video Poker money and that type of thing, so they are going to hold our money to fund that retirement system one way or the other, so we need to budget it because it is not coming.

Councilman Jackson: What did they do this year?

Mayor Hightower: They didn’t do anything.

Mr. Dark: The increase didn’t come in until July and they have begun to attach it every since then for the $120 or so thousand.

What you really ask is that the Fire suit was suppose to been heard in July. At the time, we thought it was better off to see what happened. That case got postponed twice due to either once the illness of the judge and once just a scheduling down in Baton Rouge with the court. Had we known it in November, we probably would have gone ahead and budget it the whole time, but we didn’t so our feeling is, we got to go ahead and do it. We may, and I think may is a big underline right now, we may end up not having to pay that because there are some differences in the case between Fire and Police and there is just no guarantee that the Police side is not going to prevail.

Councilman Jackson: Did you ever consider, budgeting six months or $700 and (whatever the number is) thousand rather than the whole year based on your experience from this prior year?

Mr. Dark: I don’t think there is any reason to believe at this point, that we are not going to have to pay it, at least for a while whether it is the whole year, I don’t know. Mr. Antee just pointed out, the chances of it getting into court again, if the Police Pension Board doesn’t simply roll over which would seem unlikely given their financial circumstances getting it back into court is not going to be an easy thing, it is not going to be immediate, and the truth is, they are going to attach that with penalties and interest and it is just not good idea to give that up at this point.

Councilman Jackson: So our payment for Fire and Police comes out of Retained Risk?

Mr. Dark: Actually no it doesn’t. Our point all along with the Pirates money in excess of what we use for Overlay is that we were hoping to be able to use that to deal with whatever liabilities we might have on Fire and Police Pension or at least to start dealing with if we’d loss the Fire thing. At this point, our feeling is that is the best source of this money. All we are doing, we had parked the extra Pirates money in the Retained Risk Fund and we are taking it out of there, we could put it in the General Fund, I guess, all along and then we wouldn’t have had to make this amendment this way but that is why we are doing it.

Councilman Hogan: On the $120,000 dollar amount to reinstate Employee Education Program in January, Mr. Dark maybe you can answer this question for me. I’ve heard in the past that there have been some employees that have done some on-line courses that have run up some bills in the thousands. I won’t mention the amount, but well above what it should be I think per employee. Is there any type of cap or limit on this per employee?

Mr. Dark: We have stopped the situation that you are describing, but the whole Educational Employee Program is governed by the terms of an Administrative Procedure that is going to end up being revised, we are pretty sure because had we told you we are somewhat inclined, I think, to stop paying for any new or to cease paying for any new graduate programs with the deal so there is going to have to be some revisions anyway and we will deal with those at the same time. The on-line stuff we saw the bills as well and decided that was something we wanted to do anymore.

Councilman Hogan: : The program is designed for someone to get their undergraduate degree?

Mr. Dark: Associate or Undergraduate.

Councilman Hogan: Associate or Undergraduate–a 2 or 4 year degree.

Mayor Hightower: The other thing that we discussed was Councilman Hogan’s question, there were people that were attending Phoenix University and if you see them in an airline magazine, we had somebody attending, but we did, part of the policy was to stop out of state tuition. So, you can only attend in-state with the exception Wiley because we have a joint agreement with them so it is the only out-of-state.

Councilman Hogan: Maybe we need to make a requirement for them to go to Louisiana Tech.

Councilman Carmody: That is a personal prom.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson for adoption of Amendment No. 1. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Hogan, and Green. 5. Nays: Councilman Gibson and Jackson. 2.

Amendment No. 2: [withdrawn by Councilman Gibson.]

Councilman Gibson: I make a motion to postpone or to table this issue; table.

Motion by Councilman Gibson to table Amendment No. 2, seconded by Councilman Green.

Councilman Jackson: Can you table an amendment?

Councilman Carmody: I was going to ask, in that we were adopt the budget.

Mr. Thompson: Yeas, we are going to adopt the budget or I think that you are going to adopt this budget, you have to do it by a certain time and I really don’t know procedurally how we table this when it is sort of inside of this ordinance.

Mr. Dark: If I might suggest that procedurally that the usual way to do this is that the author of the amendment might simply chose not to offer it at this time which is the same effect. I mean if you are not going to vote on it one way or the other today, it in effect doesn’t exist until it is set up as a new ordinance or a new amendment.

Councilman Gibson: Based on the information in terms of whether we are or aren’t on the hook for liabilities, I am going to remove this from consideration.

Amendment No. 3:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Decrease General Government - Transfer to Retained Risk Fund by $206,000.

Increase Police - Improvements and Equipment by $206,000.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford for adoption of Amendment No. 3.

Councilman Lester: Chief, could you talk to us about your needs and your Department and how this amendment would or would not help to address some of those needs that you have previously articulated.

Chief Campbell: I think the assessment that I’ve done in the Police Department, I think it is probably ain’t going to be news to anybody. We have some manpower issues, there are some training issues, that we have but several of those have been addressed and let me while I’m on that, talk just briefly about that and I think that it refers to Councilman Gibson’s proposal here a few weeks ago talking about training monies. Certainly, we will take anything that we could get but the issue is in regards to those issues that were raised in April about the type of training that Shreveport Police Department was needing. We have addressed those training through the Justice Department at no charge and most of the topics that were covered, covered (inaudible) policing, racial profiling, crime scene conflict management, mediation, and they came in (the Justice Department) last week trained our trainers and several other departments as well in that area and that the next step, we will actually include that training in our In-Service Re-trainers in 2004 training year.

In addition to that, they are offering us additional training, in fact are going to look at possible giving us some certified mediation training where we actually have certified mediators on the Police Department, so that need is, that specific need has been addressed. The other training needs that I think that we have is our supervisory in management training. We’ve also located some funding where I think we can get that done. We are currently working with LSU trying to work out an agreement with them for that training and I think that we can do that within the scope and the monies that we have appropriated now.

The next issue, is obviously going to be equipment, Tasers and we’d already taken action. We’ve located some money to buy the initial 65 that we currently have on order now. The Taser representatives are in town today and tomorrow teaching our instructors how to properly use them so that they will be able, to in turn train our officers and so that is in process now.

What this would do rather than to stretch this over a 3-year period, it would give us enough Tasers to outfit all of the officers when we get them which will be roughly about 315 units. We got approximately 370 officers on patrol right now and that would also free us, free some of those units up to be used in our correction facilities or in our jail.

Councilman Lester: Explain to us, I guess just a quick and dirty on the Tasers and how the Police Department plans to use those, the Tasers on the street and on patrol?

Chief Campbell: It would be used as any other tool based on the use of force will at well level, obviously you wouldn’t use a Taser in a lethal force confrontation, but anything less than that, it would certainly be a possibility that it could be used. In fact there is a study, well not actually a study, but it is off the Taser website, Phoenix is fixing to outfit their entire Police Department with it and I’ll share this with you, I’m sure that I can find what I was looking for but they have done some studies where it has reduced their officer injury significantly and also reduced their fatal shootings and I can pass this out.

Councilman Lester: What is the timetable if we are able to move forward on this, what would be the timetable for us actually being able to equip and train our patrol officers and have them on the streets with this new tool?

Chief Campbell: We can get the training with the units that we have in place now, we can get the training started. The actual hold up is going to be because apparently the manufacturers in inundated with orders for the Taser at this point. I would think that and realistically speaking I would think that we could have that done by the first quarter of 2004 and actually have it (inaudible) in April.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Chief and I want to just appreciate you for allowing me to come in and participate in the demonstration of the Taser. Having been Tased, its one of those experiences you definitely will not forget and I can not see how if someone is in a situation with a police officer, if they are Tased, I mean, I can’s ee how they won’t be able to comply because in my particular situation, I was held there for 2 seconds that was just–it was mind clearing—let me just put it like that.

Chief Campbell: And I commend you for coming out and doing that today. I think that, in fact some of the officers really respected you for doing that.

Councilman Lester: I’m sure some of them want to Tase me. Look like they were picking lots, Mr. Chairman.

Chief Campbell: But another good think about it and I think that you will comment on that was that, you were back in action right after and there is no long effect and that is, look at your performance tonight and that will let you know.

Councilman Lester: That’s a good point, Chief.

Councilman Carmody: Could we hit him, again.

Councilman Hogan: I think you charged him up a little bit.

Councilman Jackson: How often do ya’ll buy new guns?

Chief Campbell: We haven’t bought new firearms in, I’m trying to think back and actually we didn’t buy them the last time, we worked out a trade which was kind of a one time deal, that will probably never happen again, but service life on a weapon is pretty lengthy.

Councilman Lester: Well when you get some new ones, Councilman Green is going to volunteer and let you shot him. He’s dressed for it, just in case.

Councilman Green: At this time on the Risk Management, we basically the ones that we have is pilot program and I think basically what we need to do, is basically give the operation a chance to work because at this time we have not had a report to come back to say that we had an incident and they worked and I think basically before we go and order 200 or however many, I think that we ought to let the process take it place. I mean, because at this time we don’t have a report and I don’t think that if the report comes back that we need them or should have them or whatever then we’ll still have the money to buy them but I think right now we are basically placing the cart before the horse and we are not giving the process a n opportunity to work. It all sounds good but on the other hand, Chief if you had one of those Tasers right now and I attempted to choke Councilman Mike Gibson, could that Taser stop me from doing it at this distance?

Chief Campbell: About 15 feet.

Councilman Green: So, I’d have to pull him up a little closer.

Chief Campbell: Probably have to get just a little bit closer to you.

Councilman Lester: So therefore, if I’m 20 feet away it is still not going to work and basically. So I just think that we ought to wait until a report comes back to see what the report say and then move forward. It is a pilot program and I just think that is where we are at this particular time. [Councilman Gibson called for the question, seconded by Councilman Jackson and unanimously approved.]

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

Councilman Carmody: I wanted to echo what Councilman Green had said because as a member of the Risk Management Committee the Chief Does understand that we have ordered 65 as a pilot program. We have not received those yet, correct?

Chief Campbell: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: And I’ll tell you after the information that we receive in the preliminary and just looking over along with the Administration the products that were out there, that I’m encouraged and am anxious to see what the report comes back in on the 65 that we got in the hopes that we would have found another tool that will assist that will be non-lethal but that was, I hope that ya’ll will bear with me, but that was my comment here. And, my vote really, hopefully I will have a chance to vote again to outfit the entire force with this tool but I am anxious to see the results of our test program, first.

Councilman Jackson: Chief I wanted to and to Councilman Lester as well, I fully support the idea of doing it. I made a commitment to the Risk Management Committee that until such time that you all came back rather than make an investment in 300 of them to find out if in fact there was something better that you all may discover, if not, if you all on ya’ll recommendation and your report back to the Risk Management Committee if you all after that time say that it is a great idea, we don’t have to send any of them back, if it is a bad idea. I think the idea is an excellent one and I suggested to those who are a part of the Risk Management Committee that, I was in support of Councilman Lester’s effort. However, I would in fact give them the time to make sure that a pilot program has been run so that we don’t make an investment before we are sure about what happens.

Mayor Hightower: I’ve heard what the nays had to said but we are trying to budget and we do think that it is important that we eventually get these and I certainly respect your thoughts on the pilot program but we do need a little bit of guidance. I mean, if you think after the pilot program works, that you would be in support we want to hold that money because we don’t think that there is any need not to get them, we there is desperately a need to have them. And part of what has happened with Taser and you heard the Chief say it, is they are back ordered now and they are hard, hard to get. So we just don’t want to take too long and have another incident happened that possibly Taser could have helped us on. So, I guess what I am asking for is some sort of gentleman’s agreement or nodding of the head that if the Chief comes back to you in a few weeks and says, we need to do this, that we can get it done and get them on order so that we can get our Department equipped as quickly as possible.

Councilman Jackson: I can only speak for myself, but I hope that my previous statement would indeed let you know that I endorse that, so I don’t know what kind of action it takes to do whatever we need with the $200,000 to make sure that it is not spent/appropriated somewhere else, but I do in fact fully support the idea and would hope that we would not do something else with the money. My vote against it is not to use it for something else, but is in to in fact allow this to serve as a due diligence period for the Risk Management Committee.

Councilman Lester: The purpose of you ordering the Tasers in the first place because, wasn’t it because you felt that the Tasers would help out in the administration of what needs to be done on the street in terms of your patrol officers, wasn’t that the driving force?

Chief Campbell: That’s correct.

Councilman Lester: As I appreciate it, you ordered 65 units, is that correct?

Chief Campbell: That’s correct.

Councilman Lester: If you would have had the entire amount available to you to equip all of your officers, would you not have in fact equipped all of your officers at that time?

Chief Campbell: Yes, sir I would have.

Councilman Lester: So the whole purpose of the pilot program was only because. . . .

Chief Campbell: . . . because of funding.

Councilman Lester: . . because of funding not because that you did not know whether or not the Tasers would work, your position was you didn’t have the money so ordered the best that you could, isn’t that correct?

Chief Campbell: Yes sir it was an issue to us and we knew we needed to act on it quickly. We only had the money for 65 units, we purchased those units. And what we were going to do, we know they are going to work, the problem is, is that we were going with only 65 units, that we would have to pass them from one shift to the next. This way, everybody gets one and we don’t have to do that and I think that the system works better. It is just like a vehicle, they last longer, you take care of them longer and plus if that officer is on another assignment and not at work, something may happen say an extra job or a duty assignment, the Indy Bowl or whoever, that he would still have access to that weapon. It was funding issue in the fact that we only ordered 65.

Councilman Lester: And point in fact, if you would have had this entire amount available to you, there would have been no such thing as pilot program, you would have ordered all at one time correct?

Chief Campbell: Correct.

Councilman Lester: Having said that, I would ask and I would ask to prevail on the party that was prevailed on this issue. Given the fact that the Chief indicated that the only reason there was a pilot program was because he did not have the funds available and I think it is clear from the Administration and from the Chief that if these were available he would ordered them all at one time.

I would ask that those on the prevailing side would offer a motion to reconsider so that we could give the Chief what he needs because clearly based on what the Chief has indicated to us right now, the only reason there was a pilot program was because he didn’t have the entirety of the funds available at that time.

Councilman Gibson called for a point of order. A point of order in the fact that we’ve already voted on this. All of this discussion is out of order. I would suggest that we have had several comments of which have all danced around this issue, that at a later date we can always come back just like we’ve done on 2 or 3 other items just previously and if we can do that in 2004, I think everybody up here realizes there is an opportunity, but we voted on this. It is voted down and lets move on and lets go to the next item.

Councilman Carmody: And as the Chairman let me point out that I have failed ya’ll at this moment because there was not a motion on the floor and a second to allow the discussion, so I should have cut it off at that point and I will make sure that I am more diligent in the future.

Councilman Lester: For failure to break protocol and what have you, I think that our Rules of Procedure are not at the level that they supplants the Police Department’s ability to properly police the city of Shreveport and certainly would not prime, giving them a tool that would prevent us from having more and more lethal confrontations between police officers and the citizens.

Now, I understand Robert’s Rules and that is very important but at the end of the day, the Police Chief by his own words have said, if the funds were available, he needs this. I would hate for us to be in a situation where some officer could have been dealing with a situation that because he did not have a Taser, he had to draw his service revolver and have another either shooting or. . . .

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask for a Point of Order, again.

Councilman Lester: .. . when he could have been (inaudible) by us moving forward on this issue. I think it is more important than. . . .

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Lester, I hope that we don’t have that circumstance, but again. . . .

Councilman Lester: But Mr. Chairman, with all due respect we do, we can (inaudible) situation now.

Councilman Carmody: I know, but we are actually out of order and I think that this body had heard the request from any of the prevailing side that if they wanted to bring the amendment back up for consideration that they would be able to make a motion and I did not hear that motion. So, at this point I would entertain a motion on Ordinance 158 as amended.

Councilman Lester: That is crazy.

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

Amendment No. 3 (Reconsideration)

Motion by Councilman Jackson to reconsider Amendment No. 3 of Ordinance No. 158, seconded by Councilman Lester. Motion denied by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Hogan, and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilman Carmody, Gibson, and Green. 3.

Councilman Carmody: The reconsideration failed, it had to be a 2/3rds vote, Is that not correct, Mr. Clerk?

Mr. Thompson: Yes.

Councilman Carmody: I like his positive, as confident an answer as you can give.

Mr. Thompson: That is correct.

Mrs. Glass: We checked Robert’s Rules of Order and that is a majority vote on reconsideration.

Councilman Carmody: We’ll go back, it is actually a majority vote; so, the motion to reconsider passes at this point.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt Amendment No. 3. Motion approved the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 5. Nays: Councilman Carmody and Green. 2.

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

3. Ordinance No. 159 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 Capital Improvements Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No. 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program B (Recreation Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Swimming Pool Renovations (01B003) by $500,000. Funding source is 2003 GOB.

Increase the appropriation for Cockrell Park Community Center (01B004) by $2,700,000. Funding source is 2003 GOB.

In Program C (Streets Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for the following projects by the amounts shown below. Funding source is 2003 GOB.

Southern Loop Extension (01C013) $1,000,000

Booker T. Street Paving - Kennedy to Broadway $ 590,000

(01C018)

Missouri Street Paving - Jordan to Ashton (01C019) $ 620,000

Turn Lane at Ravendale and North Market (01C020) $ 240,000

Turn Lane at Mansfield Road and Southland Park Drive $ 200,000

(01C021)

South Brookwood Bridge Replacement (01C026) $ 200,000

Sidewalk Program and Curb Cuts (01C029) $2,000,000

Neighborhood Street Projects - 2001 Bonds (01C031) $4,000,000

Street Projects for Economic Development - 2001 Bonds $3,000,000

(01C032)

Street Lighting - 2001 Bonds (01C033) $ 500,000

Railroad Crossing Improvements (01C034) $ 750,000

Change the title of Project 01C016 to Easy Street Paving - East Dalzell to East Oiive and increase its appropriation by $595,000 from 2003 GOB.

Increase the overall total for Program C by $1,983,700, to reflect amendments to the 2003 budget adopted since October 1, 2003.

In Program D (Drainage Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for the following projects by the amounts shown below. Funding source is 2003 GOB.

Green Terrace Ditch, Phase II (01D001) $1,000,000

Brush Bayou Drainage (01D002) $ 675,000

Ditch Improvements - MLK Area (01D003) $ 900,000

St. Vincent Ditch Repairs (01D005) $ 550,000

Dixie Garden Road Drainage (01D006) $ 820,000

Eastside Ditch Paving (01D007) $ 820,000

2600 Leaf Lane Drainage (01D008) $ 400,000

200 India Drive Drainage (01D009) $ 400,000

Trailridge Ditch Improvements (01D010) $ 695,000

City-Wide Drainage - 2001 Bonds (01D015) $1,895,000

Paved Ditch Repairs - 2001 Bonds (01D016) $2,000,000

Purchase of Flood-Prone Properties, Phase III (01D017) $1,250,000

In Program E (Water Improvements):

Increase the overall total by $928,500, to reflect amendments to the 2003 budget adopted since October 1, 2003.

In Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Decrease the overall total by $928,500, to reflect amendments to the 2003 budget adopted since October 1, 2003.

In Program G (Traffic Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Traffic Signal System Improvements (01G001) by $5,000,000. Funding source is 2003 GOB.

In Program I (Fire Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for the following projects by the amounts shown. Funding source is 2003 GOB.

Fire Equipment Replacement (01-I002) $ 500,000

Fire Station Renovations, Phase II (01-I003) $ 700,000

Fire Maintenance Facility (01-I004) $1,200,000

Appropriate $1,300,000 to Construction of Fire Station # 22 (04-I001) from 2003 GOB.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of Amendment No. 1. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Amendment No. 2:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program B (Recreation Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Sci-Port Space Center /Planetarium (99B001) by $2,800,000. Funding sources are $800,000 from Riverfront Development and $2,000,000 from State Capital Outlay.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford for adoption of Amendment No. 2. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Amendment No. 3:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program A (Buildings and Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Energy Improvements for City Facilities (04A002) by $150,000. Funding source is State Revolving Loan Program.

In Program E (Water Improvements):

Establish a project entitled Jefferson Paige Road Water and Sewer Main Relocation (04-E001) at $268,000. Funding sources are $151,800 from 1991-A URB and $116,200 from 1994-A URB.

In Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for SSO Abatement Program (98-F004) by $115,000. Funding source is 1989-A URB.

Decrease the appropriation for Wastewater Collection System Rehab, Phase II (98-F005) by $115,000. Funding source is 1989-A URB.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson for adoption of Amendment No. 3. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Amendment No. 4: (Motion by Councilman Lester [died for lack of a second.)]

Amendment No. 5:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Stoner Lift Station Improvements (01F004) by $4,200,000. Funding source is 2003 State Refunding Loan Fund.

Increase the appropriation for Albert Street Sewer Main (02F008) by $1,800,000. Funding source is 2003 State Refunding Loan Fund.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of Amendment No. 5 Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Amendment No. 6 [withdrawn by Councilman Gibson].

Councilman Gibson: I am going to withdraw that at the present time based on information that we don’t know whether or not we have some liability but this issue will be brought back before this body in January.

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

4. Ordinance No. 160 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Water and Sewerage Enterprise Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No. 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Operating Reserve by $78,700.

Decrease Transfer to General Fund by $78,700.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Jackson for adoption of Amendment No. 1. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

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

5. Ordinance No. 161 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 Airports Enterprise Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Gibson, seconded by Councilman Green adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

6. Ordinance No. 162 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No. 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Decrease Transfer from General Fund by $1,437,100.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Decrease Liability Reserves by $1,436,500.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson for adoption of Amendment No. 1.

Councilman Jackson: That’s already passed and we have to move that money.

Mr. Thompson: That is correct, this is the companion.

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

Amendment No. 2 [withdrawn by Councilman Gibson].

Amendment No. 3:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Decrease Transfer from General Fund by $206,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Decrease Liability Reserves by $206,000.

Mr. Dark: This is the companion to the one you’ve already done. I mean, if you want to vote on it you are going to be, have a budget that is out of balance. We’ve already defeated it once but if you want to vote on it, it is your call.

Councilman Lester: I am going to ask that we move forward on Amendment No. 3. I would ask that we support this and I would also again, because I think that now is the proper time to prevail on the party that was prevailing, to reconsider.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford for adoption of Amendment No. 3.

Councilman Lester: You know it makes no–at a certain point we have to get beyond personal issues and political issues, and deal with what is going to be in the best interest of the City.

We have had scenarios where citizens have come into contact within the last 30 days with officers with the Shreveport Police Department and the Police Department for one reason, those officers drew their service revolvers and shot citizens and you have two citizens that have loss life.

The Police Chief Mike Campbell, prior to that and after the Hudspeth situation thought enough about Tasers to order Tasers with the limited funds that he had. That same Police Chief came before us and said, this was not a pilot program, that if in fact he would have the resources available he would have equipped the entirety of the Police Department so that all of the patrol officers would have the tool and he would train them.

This is not a pilot program. This is not a camera. This is not something that we have to wonder if it works. The Police Chief from his own statement just moments ago said, this will work.

And if you don’t believe me and you don’t believe the Chief, look at the fact that around the country every city that has had in the recent last year, incidents between police and citizens, with citizens losing life have almost unilaterally gone to ordering Tasers to give their police officers another tool so that lethal force is not the only option.

My question is this: What is it going to cost us as a City Council? Would you rather not pay $206,000 that money is already identified for us to equip those officers or are we going to have to have another incidence where a citizen loses life? The Police Chief that is here said, give me these tools, I can use these. If we are going to wait, the blood on the next citizens that is shot is going to be on the hands and on the heads of those of us up here that decided to do a pilot program. It would be a completely different scenario if the money was not available, but clearly it is.

I am going to again, prevail on this Council to get pass whatever is going on and lets move forward because the cots are entirely too high. Councilman Carmody was in a situation where just years ago, before we came on the Council he asked for a report about the jail. The report came in that some changes had to be made to the jail and those changes were not make because we had to identify the money or we had to look and try to make some changes when we had some money later. And because those changes were not made to the jail, after that same committee that Councilman Carmody chairs said, make these changes, it resulted in the City paying several multi-million dollar judgments.

My question is, when are we going to learn from our past mistakes? Is another citizen going to have lose life? Are we going to have to pay another multi-million dollar judgement? To me, it just makes sense that we spend the $206,000 dollars and equip our Police Department as opposed to paying a judgment later. The cost of waiting for a pilot program are too high in terms of potential litigation and loss of life.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Lester said it very well, but in the last 30-days I’ve been the recipient of two telephone calls from the Chief when there has been a fatal shooting in my district and I’ll tell you, it is not something you want to hear. If we save one life for $206,000 dollars it is worth it. I can’t see how we could say, no. I am going to encourage a ‘yes’ vote.

Councilman Green: It is my understanding that, if we vote for this that our budget is going to be out of order. It is also my understanding, you are a member of the Risk Management Committee, Mrs. Washington is a member. We are doing it on a pilot program to make sure that there are no lawsuits, that there are no danger and I just think that we need to go through due process. Even the ones we’ve ordered, we still don’t have. So therefore, I don’t think that it is going to kill us to go through due process.

We’ve got two problems. One is the Risk Management, where all are lawsuits are paid off though, has asked to give us an opportunity to make sure that they work for Shreveport. We are not saying we don’t want them. We are not talking about what has happened in another city, we are talking about, here.

The next thing is, it has already been said that if we do this then we throw the budget out of order; so, what we need to do is, just give it an opportunity to work and then we move to the next stage and then we’ll see what happens.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Thompson if in fact we have the 4 votes needed to pass this, could you help me to understand what would happen. Could we correct this if it throws the budget off, Mr. Thompson?

Mr. Thompson: A person who was on the prevailing side in defeating the prior amendment, could make a motion to reconsider that amendment. And if that motion to reconsider was adopted then they could make a motion to adopt that amendment and if that was adopted, then it would be back in sync.

Councilman Hogan: I would encourage a vote from the other Council members in favor of this. You know Councilman Green, you know when we had the drug surveillance camera that was something that might have been fairly new, but we already knew that it would work and this is the same situation. You know, we didn’t need to do a pilot program on the drug surveillance camera.

Councilman Green: Yes, to correct you, that is what we are doing is, a pilot program.

Councilman Hogan: Excuse me, I’m sorry?

Councilman Green: It is a pilot program. Yes, Sir. It is a pilot program.

Councilman Hogan: The drug surveillance camera?

Councilman Green: Yes, sir. It is a pilot program.

Councilman Hogan: Oh, in hopes of getting other drug surveillance cameras, is that what you are saying?

Councilman Green: In hopes to see what happens, if it works and right now at this point in time, right now, it is still a pilot program.

Councilman Hogan: I never heard it, I could have missed it but I never heard it addressed. Mr. Chair, do you remember that it was addressed as a pilot program?

Councilman Carmody: My understanding was that it was suppose to be implemented as a pilot program, yes sir, Mr. Hogan.

Councilman Hogan: I stand corrected. [Councilman Gibson called for the Question, seconded by Councilman Jackson. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: Councilman Lester. 1.]

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

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

Councilman Gibson: Do we have balanced budget problem now?

Councilman Carmody: We do have balanced budget problem and I would actually ask for some direction at this point.

Councilman Jackson: Point of Order. I would suggest that it would be kind of premature to suggest that we have a budget that is out of balance since we haven’t voted on the rest of the budget.

Councilman Carmody: That is true. . . .

Mr. Dark: You’ve already un-balanced it, Sir.

Councilman Carmody: Procedurally, we have unbalanced the budget by. . .

Councilman Jackson: Not necessary.

Councilman Gibson: And why we have an un-balanced budget?

Mr. Dark: Well, actually what’ve done, you’ve never appropriated the money so you can spend it. Its been transferred to General Fund by Retained Risk but Police can’t spend it because you didn’t adopt the amendment in General Fund. You can leave that alone and come back another day or you can move to reconsider, someone can move to adopt Amendment No. 3 to the ordinance and then if it passes you can adopt the ordinance as amended again.

Councilman Gibson: Just so I get clarification, Mr. Dark, we’ve allocated money through someone changing their vote up here but until we come back and reconsider at a later date, they can’t spend that money, is that correct?

Mr. Dark: You can reconsider now, but you are correct, you can’t spend the money.

Councilman Gibson: No matter what we’ve done, we can’t do anything until that reconsideration comes whether it is today or at a later date.

Mr. Antee: It is probably going to come out that we are putting that in the Convention Center Fund.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Antee: I appreciate you bringing a little levity to the late hour of this meeting.

Councilman Lester: With all due seriousness, I don’t think this is a situation where levity is required. I mean, yes, we have our budget out of whack, but we are talking about a issue of budget versus bodies. I mean, I don’t care about the budget being out of whack. I care about the citizens and safety on this street.[Councilman Walford called for a Point of Order.]

Councilman Walford: We have no motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman, and we are having debate.

Councilman Carmody: That is correct.

Councilman Lester: Just making a statement, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Carmody: We are outside of parliamentary procedure and I appreciate you bringing us back in, Mr. Walford.

7. Ordinance No. 163 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Golf Enterprise Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 for adoption.

Councilman Gibson: Is this budget also going to contain some improvements?

Mr. Norman: The Capital Budget included the improvements.

Councilman Gibson: So, not in the Enterprise.

Mr. Norman: No, not in the Enterprise.

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

8. Ordinance No. 164 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Metropolitan Planning Commission's Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No. 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Appropriate Transfer from Riverfront Fund at $61,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Contractual Services by $61,000.

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

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

9. Ordinance No. 165 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget funding contractual services provided to SporTran by Metro Management Associates, Inc., 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No. 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Operating Income by $160,000 and decrease Subtotal by the same amount.

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

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

10. Ordinance No. 166 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 Debt Service Fund budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

11. Ordinance No. 167 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No. 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Under Fiscal Year 2004 Funds, increase Transfer from General Fund by $20,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Under 2004 Revenues, increase Administration - Improvements and Equipment by $11,500. Increase Codes Enforcement - Personal Services by $8,500.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green for adoption of the amendment.

Councilman Walford: Property Standards would appreciate passage.

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

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

12. Ordinance No. 168 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Riverfront Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect.

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 Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No. 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Estimated Fund Balance as of 1/1/04 by $61,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Other Charges by $100,000.

Decrease Operating Reserves by $900,000.

Increase Transfer to Capital Projects Fund by $800,000.

Appropriate Transfer to MPC Fund at $61,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford for adoption of Amendment No. 1.

Councilman Gibson: Just for record, I want to 1. commend the Administration in terms of as I understand it, grant applications come to the Administration for these type funds, is that correct?

Mayor Hightower: Correct.

Councilman Gibson: Just for the record, so we could have it into the record, I would like to read those organizations that are requested: Caddo Council on Alcoholism: $30,000; Barksdale Forward: $125,000; Caddo Council on Aging: $67,500; Caddo Bossier Film and Assistance: $20,000; First Step Services: $20,400; Northwest Louisiana Food Bank: $10,000; Gingerbread House: $45,000; Greenwood Acres Neighborhood Association: $10,000; Highland Area Partnership: $55,000; Hillman House: $10,000; The Greater Shreveport Human Relations: O; North Shreveport Development Corporation: $80,000; Providence House: $100,000; Queensborough Neighborhood Association: $55,000; Sciport: $335,000; Shreveport Green: $190,000; Shreveport Regional Arts Council: $455,000; Stephens African-American Museum: $20,000; Theater of Performing Arts: $50,000; Volunteers For Youth Justice: $20,000; Shreveport Bossier Community Renewal: $250,000; Independence Bowl: $100,000; December on the Red: $20,000; Youth Baseball: $25,000.

Councilman Walford: Point of Order. Is all this contained in Amendment 1?

Councilman Gibson: No, but this deal with the entire side of things. Shreveport Regional Sports Authority: $270,000.

Councilman Walford: I believe the motion was for Amendment 1.

Councilman Gibson: I understand that. I’m discussing the entire side of things. Barksdale Air Show: $25,000; LSU-S Center for Business: $100,000; Biz Camp: $50,000.

Councilman Gibson: I just got one more minute.

Councilman Gibson: $25,000; (Inaudible); CenterPoint: $25,000; Inner City Row Dance: $80,000; Shreveport Bossier Service Connection: $50,000 and Hope for Homeless: $47,000.

Councilman Carmody: Councilman Gibson.

Councilman Gibson: Again, I’m very much appreciative of the Administration supporting that, thank you.

Councilman Carmody: I appreciate that too, but the appropriate place actually would have been to read that litany of recipients of the money from the Riverfront Development actually when we got to the adoption of Ordinance No. 168 and not under Amendment 1.

Councilman Gibson: I apologize.

Amendment No. 1 approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Amendment No. 2:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Other Charges by $62,500

Decrease Operating Reserves by $62,500

Adjust totals and subtotal accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Gibson for adoption of Amendment No. 2.

Councilman Jackson: I would like to first commend the Greater Human Relations Commission for basically hanging in there and because as you well know, a few months ago, we voted to eliminate all of the funding and those citizens who volunteered certainly could have gone home and said, too bad and we talked about 10 years we been doing the same thing and not getting any results. And I think one of the models that we have to create out of the litany of things that Councilman Gibson just read is, a way to begin to ween organizations off of this Riverfront Development Budget. I think one of the models could be this Greater Shreveport Human Relations Commission. I think perhaps the vote to de-fund them, for the most part perhaps served as lighting of fire. And whatever the case, I think they have gone out and done what many have cried that they didn’t do pro-actively and they done it I guess now reactively but what I’m simply asking is that we don’t take a hundred percent of the funding away, but as we do what we have not done to any other organization is, reduce their funding by 50%.

They have then been able and you heard earlier in the meeting to attract additional funding and will apply for grants and funding that will help to boaster the organization; so this is an attempt to reduce the funding rather than eliminate totally the funding. Because we make a lot of gesters toward community development but we can’t do any kind of community development if we don’t have human relations and I think to abandon that effort, I’ll say it again and I said it months ago, to abandon that effort was in my opinion not the right thing to do and did not take a lot of courage.

So, I wanted to ask if each Council men would reconsider not taking 100% of this money away and killing this effort. It may not have done what we wanted it to do but it certainly can do nothing with zero dollars and I wanted to commend those citizens without the help of this Council or Administration or anybody else who’ve gone out and actively worked because they care about relationships in the City Shreveport. I think we ought to recognize that as we did with city workers and otherwise recognize these efforts of volunteers and do what we can to try to say ‘thank you’ in this effort by funding this Human Relations Commission and I would appreciate a ‘yea’ vote please, Sirs.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Carmody, Gibson, and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilman Walford, Hogan, and Green. 3.

Amendment No. 3 [withdraw by Councilman Lester.]

Amendment No. 4:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Other Charges by $100,000

Decrease Operating Reserves by $100,000

Adjust totals and subtotal accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Gibson for adoption of Amendment No. 4. Motion denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 5. Ayes: Councilman Lester and Gibson. 2.

Amendment No. 5:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Other Charges by $100,000

Decrease Operating Reserves by $100,000

Adjust totals and subtotal accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green for adoption of Amendment No. 5

Councilman Walford: I really think that this is setting a terrible precedent if this Council were to pass this. I think SRAC has done an excellent job of administering the arts money for the City of Shreveport and I am very disappointed in the way this was done and I would urge my fellow Council members would vote ‘no.’

Councilman Green: I’ve had different thoughts about this, but being as it may since it is not going to bother anybody I am going to vote for it.

Councilman Jackson: One of the things that we talked about on the last time around, I was concerned about whether or not what the Black Cultural Arts Coalition was doing was eating into money that SRAC had and there was some agreement that we didn’t want them to eat into that money.

So, I am supporting this because it does not take away anything from them but it gives them additional latitude for re-grant monies and so I will certainly and I don’t think anybody who is here, I know there is representative from both SRAC and the Black Cultural Arts Coalition and I don’t think anybody was in opposition to that happening and so as a result of that, I certainly will be supportive as well.

Councilman Gibson: I too feel that 1. SRAC has done on outstanding job. The cultural arts in this community is a vital economic engine. I think this is only re-enforcing the fact that organization has done an outstanding job in broadening the arts to Shreveport and Bossier and Northwest Louisiana, that this only gives them more additional resources to do what they are trained to do and what they are professional in their job and I’m very proud to say that I will be supporting this amendment to give them additional resources to do a great job in helping our community in growing both from a cultural standpoint and arts standpoint, but also help attract and sustain business and new business in this community.

Amendment No. 5 approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 5. Nays: Councilman Walford and Carmody. 2.

Amendment No. 6 [Councilman Gibson withdrew the amendment.]

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Lester for adoption of the ordinance as amended.

Councilman Gibson: I do apologize to my colleagues for being out of order. I think we have had several Out of Orders tonight not that two wrongs make a right, but I thought that it was pertinent and germane because we had a zero balance on Human Relations and I do appreciate the opportunity to add money to the Human Relations Commission.

But, I want to commend all of those organizations for an outstanding job that they are doing in terms of community service and outreach and I applaud the Administration for taking those applications. I hope that in the near future, the taxpayers when they are looking to apply for a grant for monies to go into neighborhoods like infrastructure, streets, water and sewer, that we have the opportunity to have those same dialogues and I do appreciate that.

Councilman Lester: Point of Order. I call for the Orders of the Day.

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

13. Ordinance No. 169 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Walford adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

14. Ordinance No. 170 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Fleet Services Internal Service Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Hogan adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

15. Ordinance No. 171 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Shreveport Redevelopment Agency Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Walford adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

16. Ordinance No. 172 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Downtown Parking Enterprise Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

17. Ordinance No. 173 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Environmental Grants Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment(s):

Amendment No. 1:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Estimated Fund Balance 1/1/04 by $100.

Increase Fines and Forfeitures by $25,000.

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

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

18. Ordinance No. 174 of 2003: An ordinance adopting the 2004 budget for the Downtown Entertainment Economic Development Special Revenue Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Walford adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Mr. Antee: I think 179 and 180 we are postponing, probably ask that it be removed.

19. 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 Green to postpone the ordinance until the December 19, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

20. 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 Green to postpone the ordinance until the December 19, 2003 meeting. Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Gibson: I’d ask that both 190 and 191 be taken off the docket because of previous votes, two weeks ago.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Thompson, is there anything that we need to do formally to withdraw this from the agenda.

Mr. Thompson I would move to withdraw it.

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

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

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

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

23. 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.

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 Hogan seconded by Councilman Green to postpone the ordinance until the December 19, 2003 meeting.

Councilman Hogan: I am in the process of gathering some information and I will be prepared at the next Council meeting to vote on this.

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

24. 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.

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 Carmody, seconded by Councilman Gibson for passage. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

Amend the ordinance as follows:

Delete the ordinance as introduced and substitute in lieu thereof the attached ordinance.

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

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

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

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 Gibson adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

26. 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.

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 Walford, seconded by Councilman Green adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

27. 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.

Having passed first reading on November 21, 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 for adoption.

Councilman Carmody: Gentlemen, I’m prepared to support this, but again I was certainly hoping that we were going to have somebody here to kind of apprize us of how this legislation was going to be enacted and enforced in Code Enforcement. Is there somebody with the Administration that could at least apprize us of this?

Mayor Hightower: I’m sorry, Councilman Carmody, I don’t see Wardell here today.

Councilman Carmody: In that this was, I am looking at it as quick as I can get it, but this is something that we could be delayed?

Mayor Hightower: If you want to postpone it, we don’t have a problem with it.

Councilman Carmody: Again, this was actually a request that I had made, but I am just hoping to get the. . .

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Gibson to postpone the ordinance. Motion approved by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

Councilman Carmody: Again, I am not in opposition to this, but I certainly would like to hear the explanation of how we are going to implement this and monitor this.

[After consideration of Ord. 196] Gentlemen, at this time and I’m going to ask for clarification is there a necessity to go back to address this item that was postpone so that we can have the information from Mr. Bowie.

Ms. Glass: I think you just sat it aside temporarily.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Bowie, we have 196, the item on the agenda if you recall regarding pools and ponds that are basically, we are amending certain sections of Chapter 38 of the Code of Ordinances and other provisions relative to maintenance of swimming pools and ponds on residentially zoned property and as you recall I was actually the Council member would had asked us to try and move it. What I was looking for was an explanation of how we were going to implement this and I am assuming that what would happen would be in the normal course of a citizen complaint that Code Enforcement would put together a file under a CCAR, send out a Code Enforcement Inspector to verify whether or not there was a violation, is that not correct?

Mr. Bowie: You are correct.

Councilman Carmody: Can you walk me through the process if indeed he finds that there is indeed a violation.

Mr. Bowie: What you would do, you would send the owner of the residence of a letter stating that you have problem, you have so many days to correct it. If not, then we will try to implement getting them into city court in from of a judge to make a ruling on it.

Councilman Carmody: And the process again, would have to be that we would be citing the property owner and maybe not the occupant?

Mr. Bowie: We could do both, the ordinance let us do both.

Councilman Carmody: Can I recommend that we do both?

Mr. Bowie: Yes, sir.

Councilman Carmody: Because I know that sometimes it appears that there are actually tenants in buildings that don’t have any desire to utilize the facilities and the owners don’t care whether or not they are maintained or not.

Mr. Bowie: Yeah, we could do both.

Councilman Carmody: Very good sir. I appreciate it.

Mrs. Glass: The Clerk informed me that her record of the motion that, there was a motion to postpone, so technically you would need to reconsider that and then vote.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to reconsider the ordinance. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

28. Ordinance Number 197 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 November 21, 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 Carmody for adoption. The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 2 (Appropriations) under "2003 Revenues":

In Codes Enforcement, decrease Contractual Services by $160,000 and increase Improvements and Equipment by $160,000.

Amendment adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Jackson for adoption of the ordinance as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

Councilman Green: I believe I recognized Mr. Bowie, just came in.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you sir. Maybe, if you don’t mind, maybe we can bring him up here and he can help me out.

Councilman Walford: On behalf of the Property Standards Committee, could I thank them for doing that.

Councilman Carmody: I appreciate you doing so.

29. 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.

Having passed first reading on November 21, 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 Gibson, seconded by Councilman Walford adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

30. 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.

Having passed first reading on November 21, 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 Walford adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

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

Having passed first reading on November 21, 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 Jackson adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

32. 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.

Having passed first reading on November 21, 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 Carmody for passage.

The Deputy Clerk read the following amendment:

Amend the original Ordinance as follows:

Delete the original Ordinance and substitute with the attached Ordinance

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

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

33. 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.

Having passed first reading on November 21, 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 for passage.

Councilman Gibson: Can I just get some guidance from the Councilman in that district on this issue. Where does he stand on this?

Councilman Jackson: I made the motion. I’m in support of it and would ask that you would support it, as well.

Ordinance adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: Councilman Walford. 1.

34. 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.

Having passed first reading on November 21, 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 for adoption.

Councilman Lester: To Councilman Jackson, is it your pleasure that we vote for?

Councilman Jackson: It would be an affirmative vote to reverse the decision so I think a ‘yea’ vote would be correct.

Mr. Thompson: To vote ‘yes’ would close the street.

Councilman Walford: Run that by again, Mr. Thompson, if you don’t mind.

Mr. Thompson: A ‘yes’ vote is a vote to close the street and it takes a 2/3rds vote of the Council because it was not recommended by the MPC.

Councilman Jackson: We had a discussion briefly about it on yesterday and Mr. Kirkland showed us the map, the plat if you will and I would ask if you would to consider that conversation on yesterday and please if it be your pleasure to vote ‘yea’.

Councilman Lester: I would support what Mr. Jackson is doing. We are not going to be harming or otherwise preventing other owners in this area from having access to their property, I know that was one of the issue, but this does not do this. So, I think we should support Councilman Jackson in this effort.

Ordinance adopted by following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 6. Nays: Councilman Walford. 1.

The adopted Ordinances As Amended follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 157 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BUDGET, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, pursuant to Act 554 of 1978, as amended, is authorized to and has levied a special ad valorem tax of up to 7.99 mills on property subject to ad valorem taxation within the area of the Downtown Development District of the City; and

WHEREAS, the Downtown Development Authority is authorized to expend these funds and such others as it may lawfully collect for activities which benefit the users and property owners of the City’s downtown area; and

WHEREAS, the Downtown Development Authority has approved its proposed budget for the year 2003 and has requested that the City Council approve said budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that the 2004 Downtown Development Authority budget is hereby approved and appropriated as follows:

Funds Available for Appropriation

DDA Property Tax $ 868,000

Interest Earnings 5,000

Other Income

Streetscape Contract $177,000

Streetscape Misc. Income 13,800

Parking Services Contract 408,000

DSU Reimbursement 11,000

DSDC Reimbursement 25,000

Salary Reimbursement 48,000

Riverfront Security Income 48,000

Other Income 40,800

$ 771,600

TOTAL REVENUE $1,644,600

Appropriations for 2004

DDA Administration and Programming $1,204,200

Parking Services 410,400

City Hall Relocation Reimbursement 30,000

TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $1,644,600

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

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

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 158 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 GENERAL FUND BUDGET, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated receipts for the General Fund for the year 2004 are hereby established and adopted as follows:

Taxes and Special Assessments $112,072,600

Licenses and Permits 7,583,500

External Service Charges 7,687,400

Internal Service Charges 4,410,600

Interest Earnings (200,000)

Fines and Forfeits 2,847,600

Intergovernmental 1,509,000

Miscellaneous 13,377,500

Transfer from Riverfront Fund 3,000,000

Prior-Year Fund Balance 9,610,000

TOTAL $161,898,200

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated by department, out of the General Fund receipts for the year 2004:

Office of the Mayor

Personal Services $2,093,500

Materials and Supplies 37,300

Contractual Services 185,700

Other Charges 5,700

Improvements and Equipment 15,000

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 1,000

Subtotal $2,338,200

Public Assembly and Recreation

Personal Services $7,088,300

Materials and Supplies 710,000

Contractual Services 2,589,400

Other Charges 197,400

Improvements and Equipment 239,300

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 177,800

Notes Payable 20,800

Subtotal $11,023,000

Finance

Personal Services $3,987,000

Materials and Supplies 257,100

Contractual Services 1,153,300

Other Charges ` 0

Improvements and Equipment 279,700

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 4,500

Subtotal $5,681,600

General Government

Personal Services $3,018,800

Materials and Supplies 1,000

Contractual Services 294,000

Other Charges 1,977,000

Operating Reserves 10,222,000

Improvements and Equipment 0

Transfer to MPC Fund 832,700

Transfer to SporTran Fund 4,200,000

Transfer to Retained Risk Fund 4,756,900

Transfer to Community Development Fund 2,061,900

Transfer to Golf Fund 188,900

Transfer to Capital Projects 0

Transfer to Water and Sewerage Fund 714,000

Subtotal $28,267,200

Police

Personal Services $35,186,900

Materials and Supplies 927,600

Contractual Services 731,700

Other Charges 57,000

Improvements and Equipment 1,805,600

Transfer to Police Grants Fund 59,000

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 950,000

Subtotal $39,717,800

Fire

Personal Services $34,015,700

Materials and Supplies 943,600

Contractual Services 696,900

Other Charges 6,300

Improvements and Equipment 529,500

Subtotal $36,192,000

Operational Services

Personal Services $11,569,100

Materials and Supplies 1,601,500

Contractual Services 10,690,700

Other Charges 500

Improvements and Equipment 8,547,000

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 1,256,000

Transfer to Water & Sewer Fund 347,000

Notes Payable 76,800

Subtotal $34,088,600

City Council

Personal Services $ 935,000

Materials and Supplies 13,200

Contractual Services 167,700

Other Charges 0

Improvements and Equipment 10,500

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 1,500

Subtotal $1,127,900

City Courts

Personal Services $2,169,500

Materials and Supplies 51,400

Contractual Services 57,700

Other Charges 0

Improvements and Equipment 0

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 1,100

Subtotal $2,279,700

City Marshal

Personal Services $1,147,800

Materials and Supplies 22,000

Contractual Services 12,400

Improvements and Equipment 0

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 0

Subtotal $1,182,200

GRAND TOTAL - GENERAL FUND OPERATIONS $161,898,200

2. The General Fund Budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action of the City Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

3. Capital Transfers - All amounts authorized by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance to be financed from General Fund receipts shall be transferred to the proper capital funds as provided in the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance.

4. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend and receive the funds herein authorized, excluding contracts for special legal counsel.

5. City Court Judges’ Salaries - The salary paid to each City Court judge by the City of Shreveport shall be $60,800 per annum for the year 2004.

6. City Marshal’s Salary - The salary paid to the City Marshal by the City of Shreveport shall be $79,000 per annum for the year 2004.

7. Donation of City Funds - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts involving funds appropriated herein. However, prior to execution, all contracts in which the City undertakes obligations or responsibilities over and above payment of funds herein appropriated must be authorized in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 159 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the City Charter provides that the appropriations set forth in the annual Capital Improvements Budget remain in effect until they are amended or the project is closed; and

WHEREAS, 2004 appropriations are necessary only for those projects which are new or for which the appropriation is increased or decreased.

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

Section 1 - Appropriations:

The following funds are hereby appropriated for the projects in the column titled "2004 Budget." For those projects listed herein, total project spending for all years shall not exceed the amount appropriated herein, unless such amount is increased by subsequent action of the City Council. For active capital projects which are not listed herein, but which have been previously appropriated in a Capital Budget ordinance, the prior appropriation shall remain in effect. The Director of Finance is authorized to expend same in accordance with law, to the extent that funds are available.

Program A - Building and Improvements

Projects: 2004 2004

CHANGE BUDGET

1. Multicultural Center (96A002) 200,000 3,528,500

2. Texas Avenue Campus Plan Phase IV

(Police Building)(96A004) 100,000 5,355,000

3. Festival Plaza Covered Pavilion (04A001) 250,000 250,000

4. Energy Improvements for City Facilities

(04A002) 5,250,000 5,250,000

5. Downtown Theater Development (04A003) 200,000 200,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM A PROJECTS 6,000,000 14,583,500

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM A PROJECTS 157,106,900

Revenues:

Riverfront Development Fund 650,000

State Revolving Loan Program 5,250,000

1999 GOB, Prop. 1 (Public Safety) 100,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM A REVENUES 6,000,000

Program B - Recreation Improvements

Projects:

1. Sci-Port Space Center/Planetarium (99B001) 2,800,000 5,000,000

2. Swimming Pool Renovations (01B003) 500,000 1,066,700

3. Cockrell Park Community Center (01B004) 2,700,000 3,000,000

4. Skate Park Development (04B001) 250,000 250,000

5. Querbes Park Golf Course Greens

Renovation (04B002) 200,000 200,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM B PROJECTS 6,450,000 9,516,700

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM B PROJECTS 56,253,600

Revenues:

1999 GOB, Prop. 2 (Parks) 450,000

Riverfront Development 800,000

State Capital Outlay 2,000,000

2003 GOB 3,200,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM B REVENUES 6,450,000

Program C - Street Improvements

Projects:

1. Lakeshore Drive Extension (89C021) 800,000 6,163,900

2. Downtown Gateway Improvements (96C002) 200,000 4,400,000

3. Curb Cuts for Handicapped Accessibility (96C002)(100,000) 650,000

4. Ellerbe/Flournoy-Lucas Road Intersection

(98C004) 1,000,000 2,600,000

5. Southern Loop Extension (01C013) 1,000,000 1,200,000

6. Easy Street Paving - East Dalzell to East Olive

(01C016) 595,000 690,000

7. Booker T. Paving - Kennedy to Broadway

(01C018) 590,000 690,000

8. Missouri Street Paving - Jordan to Ashton

(01C019) 620,000 690,000

9. Turn Lane at Ravendale and North Market

(01C020) 240,000 290,000

10. Turn Lane at Mansfield Road and Southland

Park Drive (01C021) 200,000 250,000

11. Turn Lane at Pierremont and Fairfield

Avenue (01C022) 190,000 590,000

12. South Brookwood Bridge Replacement

(01C026) 200,000 250,000

13. Sidewalk Program and Curb Cuts (01C029) 2,000,000 3,000,000

14. Neighborhood Street Projects - 2001 Bonds

(01C031) 4,000,000 6,000,000

15. Street Projects for Economic Development-

2001 Bonds (01C032) 3,000,000 5,000,000

15. Street Lighting - 2001 Bonds (01C033) 1,500,000 3,000,000

16. Railroad Crossing Improvements (01C034) 750,000 1,000,000

17. 2004 CDBG Overlay (04C001) 350,000 350,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM C PROJECTS 17,135,000 36,813,900

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM C PROJECTS 93,494,800

Revenues:

1996 GOB, Prop. 4 (Streets) 200,000

1999 GOB, Prop. 4 (Streets) 2,690,000

2003 GOB 13,695,000

Community Development Block Grant 350,000

Downtown Entertainment District Fund 200,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM C REVENUES 17,135,000

Program D - Drainage Improvements

Projects:

1. Green Terrace Ditch, Phase II (01D001) 1,000,000 1,100,000

2. Brush Bayou Drainage (01D002) 675,000 708,000

3. Ditch Improvements - MLK Area (01D003) 900,000 1,000,000

4. St. Vincent Ditch Repairs (01D005) 550,000 650,000

5. Dixie Garden Road Drainage (01D006) 820,000 920,000

6. Eastside Ditch Paving (01D007) 820,000 920,000

7. 2600 Leaf Lane Drainage (01D008) 400,000 460,000

8. 200 India Drive Drainage (01D009) 400,000 500,000

9. Trailridge Ditch Improvements (01D010) 695,000 795,000

10. City-Wide Drainage - 2001 Bonds (01D015) 1,895,000 2,950,000

11. Paved Ditch Repairs - 2001 Bonds (01D016) 2,000,000 3,000,000

12. Purchase of Flood-Prone Properties, Phase III

(01D017) 1,250,000 2,000,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM D PROJECTS 11,405,000 15,003,000

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM D PROJECTS 11,405,000 42,093,900

Program E - Water Improvements

Projects:

1. Water Treatment Plant Renovations,

Phase IV (93E003) 900,000 4,160,000

2. Amiss Washwater and Sludge Handling

(94E003) 100,000 7,234,600

3. Jefferson-Paige Road Water and Sewer

Main Relocation (04E001) 268,000 268,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM E PROJECTS 1,268,000 11,662,600

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM E PROJECTS 60,180,000

Revenues:

1989 A Utility Revenue Bonds 100,000

1991 A Utility Revenue Bonds 729,800

1994 A Utility Revenue Bonds 438,200

SUBTOTAL -PROGRAM E REVENUES 1,268,000

Program F - Sewer Improvements

Projects:

1. SSO Abatement Program (98F004) 115,000 4,215,500

2. Wastewater Collection System Rehab.,

Phase II (98F005) (115,000) 985,000

3. Stoner Lift Station Improvements (01F004) 4,200,000 5,328,500

4. Albert Street Sewer Main (02F008) 1,800,000 1,895,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM F PROJECTS 6,000,000 12,424,000

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM F PROJECTS 105,327,000

Revenues:

State Revolving Loan Fund 6,000,000

Program G - Traffic Engineering

Projects:

1. Traffic Signal System Improvements (01G001) 5,000,000 6,286,400

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM G PROJECTS 5,000,000 6,286,400

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM G PROJECTS 6,286,400

Revenues:

2003 GOB 5,000,000

Program H - Airports Projects

Projects:

1. Part 150 Noise Acquisition Regional Airport 3,055,600 29,164,300

(99H002)

2. Downtown Airport Master Plan Update

(01H007) 117,100 269,800

3. Redesign Taxiway "D" and Rehabilitate

Teminal Apron - Downtown Airport (03H006) 392,800 942,800

3. Install Guidance Signs - Downtown Airport

(04H001) 440,000 440,000

4. Construct Parking Lot - Downtown Airport

(04H002) 16,000 16,000

5. Construct Sewerage System - Downtown

Airport (04H003) 100,000 100,000

6. ARFF Proximity Suits (04H004) 44,000 44,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM H PROJECTS 4,165,500 30,976,900

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM H PROJECTS 47,960,700

Revenues:

Federal Aviation Administration 3,313,600

State Grant 368,100

Shreveport Airport Authority 473,800

Private Donations 10,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM H REVENUES 4,165,500

Program I - Fire Improvements

Projects:

1. Fire Equipment Replacement (01-I002) 800,000 2,800,000

2. Fire Station Renovations, Phase III (01-I003) 700,000 900,000

3. Fire Maintenance Facility (01-I004) 1,200,000 1,200,000

4. Fire Station #22 1,300,000 1,300,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM I PROJECTS 4,000,000 6,200,000

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM I PROJECTS 14,850,000

Revenues:

1999 GOB, Prop.1 300,000

2003 GOB 3,700,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM I REVENUES 4,000,000

Program L - Transit Improvements

Projects:

(a) 2004 SporTran Capital Improvements

(04L001) 4,084,900 4,084,900

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM L PROJECTS 4,084,900 4,084,900

TOTAL - ALL PROGRAM L PROJECTS 15,741,600

Revenues:

General Fund 657,000

FTA Grant 3,320,400

NL-COG 7,500

1999 GOB, Prop. 4 (Streets) 100,000

SUBTOTAL - PROGRAM L REVENUES 4,084,900

GRAND TOTAL - 2004 CHANGE $ 65,508,400

GRAND TOTAL - ALL PROJECTS $599,294,900

2. No office, department, agency or individual shall be allowed to expend any funds or incur any obligations other than in accordance with the Capital Improvements Budget’s appropriations, as provided in Article 7 of the City Charter.

3. The Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend and receive the funds herein authorized.

4. The Mayor is authorized to transfer among projects within programs and funding sources an amount which will not increase or decrease any project budget total more than ten per cent (10%), provided, however, that at least one hundred twenty (120) hours, excluding holidays and weekends, prior to taking such action, the Mayor shall notify the members of the City Council of the proposed action, the reasons for the proposed transfer and the impact the transfer will have on the projects, by filing such notice with the Clerk of Council, who shall immediately forward copies of the notice to all members of the City Council and shall file the original of such notice with the current Capital Budget Ordinance. Thereafter, a special Council meeting to consider any proposed transfer of funds will stop any action on the designated projects. Provided, further, that funds may be transferred one time only to or from a project unless the prior transfer(s) has been included in a capital budget amendment.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 160 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE WATER AND SEWERAGE ENTERPRISE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004; and

WHEREAS, sufficient revenues for the operation of the City’s Water and Sewerage system are available from sources authorized by law.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated water and sewerage receipts for the year 2004 are hereby established and adopted as follows:

Estimated Available Fund Balance 1/1/2004 $ 1,343,000

Water Sales 23,325,000

Sewer Charges 17,731,000

Other External Charges 460,200

Internal Service Charges 1,356,700

Interest Earnings 550,000

Other Income 22,200

Transfer from General Fund 347,000

TOTAL $45,135,100

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the receipts of the Water and Sewerage Fund for the year 2004:

Personal Services $ 9,560,900

Materials and Supplies 4,641,400

Contractual Services 8,530,500

Other Charges 14,397,100

Operating Reserves 2,126,500

Improvements and Equipment 742,300

Transfer to Debt Service 176,900

Transfer to General Fund 3,768,000

Transfer to Retained Risk Fund 593,000

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 542,000

Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 0

Notes Payable 56,500

TOTAL $45,135,100

3. The Water and Sewerage Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

4. Capital Transfers - All amounts authorized by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance to be financed from receipts of the Water and Sewerage Fund shall be transferred to the proper capital funds as provided by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance.

5. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized.

6. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 161 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE AIRPORTS ENTERPRISE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004; and

WHEREAS, sufficient revenues for the operation of the City’s airports are available from sources authorized by law.

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

(1) Estimated Receipts - The estimated Airport receipts for the year 2004 are hereby established and adopted as follows:

Estimated Available Fund Balance 1/1/2004 $ 4,278,100

External Service Charges and Fees 8,511,600

Interest Income 215,000

Other Income 35,000

TOTAL $ 13,039,700

(2) Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the Airports operating receipts for the year 2004:

Personal Services $ 4,494,700

Materials and Supplies 312,500

Contractual Services 1,659,300

Other Charges 1,809,100

Operating Reserves 3,721,300

Improvements and Equipment 137,000

Transfer to General Fund 220,000

Transfer to Retained Risk Fund 212,000

Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 473,800

TOTAL $ 13,039,700

(3) The Airports Enterprise Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

(4) Capital Transfers - All amounts authorized by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance to be financed from Airports receipts shall be transferred to the proper capital funds as provided by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance.

(5) Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized.

(6) Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 162 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE RETAINED RISK INTERNAL SERVICE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the year 2004; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has created a Retained Risk Fund whose purpose is to provide funding for property damage, workers’ compensation and general liability claims made against the City of Shreveport.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated receipts of the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund for 2004 are hereby established as follows:

Estimated Fund Balance as of 1/1/2004 $10,693,000

Transfer from General Fund 6,400,000

Transfer from Water and Sewerage Fund 593,000

Transfer from Airports Fund 212,000

Interest Income 76,000

Insurance Subrogation 100,000

Miscellaneous Revenue 100,000

TOTAL $18,174,000

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund’s receipts for the year 2004:

Personal Services $ 854,700

Materials and Supplies 5,000

Contractual Services 17,700

Other Charges 6,589,400

Liability Reserves 10,703,100

Improvements and Equipment 1,000

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 2,500

TOTAL $18,174,000

3. The Retained Risk Internal Service Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

4. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized, subject to the provisions of Section 26-174 of the Code of Ordinances relative to the settlement of claims against the City.

5. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 163 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004; and

WHEREAS, sufficient revenues for the operation of the City’s municipal golf courses are available from sources authorized by law.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated Golf Enterprise Fund receipts for the year 2004 are hereby established and adopted as follows:

Estimated Available Fund Balance 1/1/2004 $ 0

External Service Charges and Fees 1,213,100

Transfer from General Fund 188 900

Miscellaneous Revenues 4,800

TOTAL $1,406,800

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the Golf Enterprise Fund operating receipts for the year 2004

Personal Services $ 833,800

Materials and Supplies 218,000

Contractual Services 250,600

Other Charges 900

Operating Reserves 0

Improvements and Equipment 0

Transfer to General Fund 85,000

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 18,500

TOTAL $1,406,800

2. The Golf Enterprise Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

3. Capital Transfers - All amounts authorized by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance to be financed from Golf Enterprise Fund receipts shall be transferred to the proper capital funds as provided by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance.

4. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized.

5. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 164 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION’S SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004; and

WHEREAS, State law requires that the Metropolitan Planning Commission provide staff support to the Caddo Parish Commission, the cost of which is reimbursed by Caddo Parish; and

WHEREAS, sufficient revenues for the operation of the Metropolitan Planning Commission available from sources authorized by law.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated receipts of the Metropolitan Planning Commission’s Special Revenue Fund for the year 2004 are hereby established and adopted as follows:

External Service Charges and Fees $ 149,500

Caddo Parish Reimbursement 155,000

Operating Subsidy - Transfer from General Fund 832,700

Transfer from Riverfront 61,000

TOTAL $1,198,200

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the Metropolitan Planning Commission’s Special Revenue Fund receipts for the year 2004:

Personal Services $1,049,100

Materials and Supplies 25,700

Contractual Services 108,300

Improvements and Equipment 9,500

Notes Payable 600

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 5,000

TOTAL $1,198,200

2. The Metropolitan Planning Commission’s Special Revenue Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

3. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized.

4. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

5. Dedication of Revenues - The funds collected as charges and fees pursuant to the zoning ordinances of the City of Shreveport and the Caddo Parish Commission, and the operating subsidy transferred herein from the General Fund are hereby dedicated to the operation of the Metropolitan Planning Commission for the year 2004.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 165 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FUNDING CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO SPORTRAN BY METRO MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the year 2004; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport operates a public bus transportation system known as SporTran; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has contracted with Metro Management Associates, Inc., to provide management services for the operation and maintenance of the SporTran bus system.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated receipts, including operating subsidies, available for the operation of the SporTran bus system for the year beginning January 1, 2004 are hereby established and adopted as follows:

Operating Income $1,960,000

Government Grants and Contributions:

City of Shreveport $4,200,000

City of Bossier City 330,000

State of Louisiana 471,000

Federal Transit Administration 2,131,000

Subtotal $7,132,000

TOTAL $9,092,000

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the receipts produced by SporTran operations and operating subsidy receipts for the year beginning January 1, 2004:

Contractual Services $8,435,000

Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 657,000

TOTAL $9,092,000

3. The SporTran budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

4. Capital Transfers - All amounts authorized by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance to be financed by SporTran receipts and subsidies shall be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund as provided in the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance.

5. Operating Transfers - All amounts authorized in this ordinance to subsidize SporTran operations shall be transferred to the SporTran budget as needed.

6. Administration - The Mayor, or any duly authorized representative, is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive the funds authorized herein.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will become effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 166 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the year 2004; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has created a Debt Service Fund to provide for the payment of principal and interest on the General Obligation Bonds of the City; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to levy a special property tax whose proceeds are allocated to the Debt Service Fund.

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

1.Estimated Receipts - The estimated receipts of the Debt Service Fund for the year 2004 are hereby established as follows:

Estimated Fund Balance as of 1/1/2004 $42,044,800

Ad Valorem Taxes (30.54 Mills) 27,750,000

Hotel-Motel Tax Revenues 1,200,000

Interest Income 800,000

TOTAL $71,794,800

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the Debt Service Fund’s receipts for the year 2004:

2004 Requirements - Principal and Interest $41,947,600

Less: Amount Paid by Water & Sewer Fund (236,500)

Less: Operating Transfer (Riverfront Fund) (8,383,000)

Less: Operating Transfer (General Fund) (6,930,000)

NET EXPENDITURES $26,398,100

Fund Balance 12/31/04 $45,396,700

TOTAL $71,794,800

3. The Debt Service Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

4. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 167 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the year 2004; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has created the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, to account for certain funds spent on jobs training, housing improvement, codes enforcement and neighborhood development.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated Community Development Special Revenue Fund budget receipts for the year 2004 are hereby established as follows:

2003 and Prior-Year Funds:

Prior-Year CDBG Entitlement 375,000

Prior-Year HOME Entitlement 1,370,900

Prior-Year HOME Program Income 300,000

Prior-Year HOPE Program Income 236,700

Prior-Year LAJET Grants 302,200

Prior-Year WIA Grants 2,550,400

Prior-Year SHMA Program Income 90,500

Prior-Year Housing Program Income 450,200

Prior-Year Riverfront Development Funds 300,000

Prior-Year Section 108 (SICED) 2,000,000

Prior-Year EDI Grant 1,259,800

Prior-Year Business Development Prog. Income 300,000

Prior-Year Basic Education Program Income 6,000

SUBTOTAL - 2003 AND PRIOR YEARS $9,541,700

Fiscal Year 2004 Funds:

CDBG Entitlement $3,266,000

Housing Program Income 300,000

HOME Entitlement 1,531,000

HOME Program Income 100,000

HOPE Program Income 20,000

Federal Emergency Shelter 131,000

State Emergency Shelter 116,500

Transfer from General Fund 2,061,900

Codes Enforcement Ext. Service Charges 175,000

SHMA Program Income 90,000

Leased Housing Rehab Program Income 20,000

Business Development Program Income 100,000

Basic Education Program Income 6,000

Private Donations 5,000

SUBTOTAL - FY 2004 FUNDS $7,922,400

GRAND TOTAL REVENUES $17,464,100

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the Community Development Special Revenue Fund’s receipts for the year 2004:

Prior-Year Funds:

CDBG:

EDI Grant 1,521,100

SICED Grant 2,375,000

HOME Program 232,800

HOME Program Income 300,000

HOPE III Program Income 236,700

Workforce Development Grants:

LAJET 302,200

WIA 2,550,400

Basic Education Program Income 6,000

SHMA Program Income 90,500

Business Development Program Income 300,000

Housing Program 1,138,100

Housing Program Income 300,000

SUBTOTAL - 2003 AND PRIOR YEARS $ 9,352,800

2004 Revenues (includes $188,900 in prior-year funds):

Administration:

Personal Services $ 495,100

Materials and Supplies 7,100

Contractual Services 38,600

Other Charges 0

Improvements and Equipment 11,800

Transfer to General Fund 68,300

Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 350,000

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 1,000

Subtotal $ 971,900

Emergency Shelter Grants:

Federal ESG $ 131,000

State ESG 116,500

Subtotal $ 247,500

Public Facilities and Improvements: $ 259,400

Subtotal $ 259,400

Public Service Projects: $ 300,000

Subtotal $ 300,000

TOTAL - ADMINISTRATION $1,778,800

Housing and Business Development:

Personal Services $ 496,000

Materials and Supplies 15,500

Contractual Services 65,000

Other Charges 1,000

Improvements and Equipment 5,700

Transfer to General Fund 127,500

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 3,000

Subtotal $ 713,700

Programs:

Business Development

Small Business Development Program $ 100,000

Basic Education Program 6,000

Subtotal $ 106,000

Housing

Housing Program 903,200

CHDO 229,700

CHDO Operating 55,100

HOME Program 1,007,600

HOME Program Income 100,000

Housing Program Income 232,500

SHMA Program Income 90,000

HOPE III Program Income 20,000

Leased Housing Program Income 20,000

Section 108 Loan Repayment 315,600

Multi-Family Housing Development 320,000

Paint Your Heart Out - Private Donations 5,000

Subtotal $3,298,700

TOTAL - HOUSING & BUSINESS DEV. $4,118,400

Codes Enforcement:

Personal Services $ 788,000

Materials and Supplies 103,100

Contractual Services 968,100

Other Charges 307,400

Improvements and Equipment 0

Transfer to Fleet Services Fund 47,500

TOTAL - CODES ENFORCEMENT $ 2,214,100

GRAND TOTAL - APPROPRIATIONS (2004) $ 8,111,300

GRAND TOTAL - ALL APPROPRIATIONS $17,464,100

3. The Community Development Special Revenue Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action of this Council, be and is hereby adopted

4. Capital Transfers - All amounts authorized by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance to be financed by receipts of the Community Development Special Revenue Fund shall be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund as provided in the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance.

5. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive the funds herein authorized.

6. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will become effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 168 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE RIVERFRONT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the year 2004; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has available in fiscal year 2004 certain funds as a result of gaming activity on its Riverfront; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has previously determined that the dedication of these funds to riverfront, downtown and economic development activity to be beneficial to the interests of the City of Shreveport.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated receipts of the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund for 2004 are hereby established as follows:

Estimated Fund Balance as of 1/1/2004 $5,594,000

Land Rent 855,000

Gaming Head Tax/Harrah’s 5,800,000

Gross Gaming Revenue/Harrah’s 1,400,000

Boomtown Casino 1,350,000

Hollywood Casino 6,000,000

Interest Earnings 160,000

TOTAL $21,159,000

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures and projects are hereby appropriated out of the Riverfront Special Revenue Fund’s receipts for the year 2004:

Personal Services $ 273,900

Materials and Supplies 2,800

Contractual Services 814,200

Other Charges 2,775,000

Operating Reserves 4,344,100

Transfer to General Fund 3,055,000

Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 1,450,000

Transfer to Debt Service Fund 8,383,000

Transfer to MPC Fund 61,000

TOTAL $21,159,000

3. The Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

4 Capital Transfers - All amounts authorized by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance to be financed from the receipts of the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund shall be transferred to the proper capital funds as provided by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance.

5 Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized.

6 Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 169 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE POLICE GRANTS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport required the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the year 2004; and

WHEREAS, the City has created a Police Grants Special Revenue Fund, to account for the receipt of and expenditure of funds provided to the City by various agencies to assist in specific law enforcement programs.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that;

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated Police Grants Special Revenue Fund for the year 2004 are hereby established as follows:

2003 and Prior-Year Receipts:

Prior-Year Reduction of Crack / Drug Houses $ 9,000

Prior-Year Police Block Grant 2002 $269,700

Prior-Year Police Block Grant 2003 $217,100

Prior-Year OCDETF $ 59,300

Prior-Year Shreveport Enforcement Project 2002 $ 37,500

Prior-Year AFIS 2003 $192,500

Prior-Year DARE Grant 2003 $ 62,800

Prior-Year Safe and Sober 2003 $ 2,500

Prior-Year Project Safe Neighborhoods 2003 $147,500

SUBTOTAL 2002 and Prior-Year Receipts $997,900

Fiscal Year 2004Revenues:

AFIS 2004 $384,900

OCDETF 2004 $ 79,300

DARE 2004 $106,000

Shreveport Enforcement Project 2004 $ 50,000

Block Grant 2004 $217,100

(Includes local match of $21,700)

Weed Seed 2004 Highland Core $125,000

Weed Seed 2004 Highland Special Emphasis $ 50,000

Weed Seed 2004 Highland Asset Forfeiture $ 50,000

Weed Seed 2004 Queensborough Core $ 87,500

Weed Seed 2004 Queensborough Special Emphasis $ 50,000

Weed Seed 2004 Queensborough Asset Forfeiture $ 87,500

Safe and Sober 2004 $ 7,500

H.I.D.T.A. 2004 $ 54,500

Drug Knock and Talk $ 59,000

(Includes local match of $13,500)

Property Crime 2004 $ 37,100

(Includes local match of $9,300)

Integrated Criminal Apprehension 2004 $ 43,300

(Includes local match of $10,900)

Anti-Terrorism 2004 $ 13,100

(Includes local match of $3,300)

SUBTOTAL FY 2004 REVENUES $1,501,800

GRAND TOTAL REVENUES $2,499,700

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth herein are hereby appropriated out of the Police Grant Special Revenue Fund’s receipts for the year 2004 and prior years:

From 2003 and Prior-Years Revenues:

From Prior Year Reduction of Crack / Drug Houses Grant, appropriate $9,000 to Materials and Supplies.

From Prior Year Police Block Grant 2002, appropriate $6,200 to Personal Services, $30,000 to Materials and Supplies, $76,500 to Contractual Services and $157,000 to Improvements and Equipment.

From Prior-Year Police Block Grant 2003, appropriate $52,200 to

Materials and Supplies, $34,000 to Contractual Services and $130,900 to Improvements and Equipment.

From Prior Year OCDETF Grant, appropriate $59,300 to Personal Services.

From Prior Year Shreveport Enforcement Project 2002, appropriate $37,500 to Personal Services.

From Prior Year AFIS 2003, appropriate $192,500 to Personal Services.

From Prior Year DARE Grant 2003, appropriate $48,900 to Personal Services and $13,900 to Other Charges.

From Prior-Year Safe and Sober, appropriate $2,500 to Personal Services.

From Prior-Year Project Safe Neighborhoods 2003, appropriate $140,200 to Personal Services, $1,900 to Materials and Supplies and $3,200 to Contractual Services.

SUBTOTAL from 2003 and Prior-Year Receipts $ 997,900

From FY 2004 Revenues:

From AFIS 2004 Grant, appropriate $384,900 to Personal Services.

From OCDETF 2004 Grant, appropriate $79,300 to Personal Services.

From DARE Grant 2004, appropriate $94,600 to Personal Services and $11,400 to Other Charges.

From Shreveport Enforcement Project 2004 Grant, appropriate $50,000 to Personal Services.

From Block Grant 2004, appropriate $17,100 to Materials and Supplies and $200,000 to Improvements and Equipment.

From Highland Weed and Seed Core Grant 2004, appropriate $49,200 to Personal Services, $5,100 to Materials and Supplies, $61,300 to Contractual Services, $5,500 to Other Charges and $3,900 to Improvements and Equipment.

From Highland Weed and Seed Special Emphasis Grant 2004, appropriate $18,000 to Personal Services, $4,000 to Materials and Supplies, $25,000 to Contractual Services and $3,000 to Other Charges.

From Highland Weed and Seed Asset Forfeiture 2004 Grant, appropriate $34,000 to Personal Services, $2,000 to Materials and Supplies, $6,000 to Other Charges and $8,000 to Improvements and Equipment.

From Queensborough Weed and Seed Core Grant 2004, appropriate $46,900 to Personal Services, $2,500 to Materials and Supplies, $30,200 to Contractual Services and $7,900 to Other Charges.

From Queensborough Weed and Seed Special Emphasis Grant 2004, appropriate $50,000 to Contractual Services.

From Queensborough Weed and Seed Asset Forfeiture Grant 2004, appropriate $56,500 to Personal Services, $2,500 to Materials and Supplies, $6,000 to Other Charges and $22,500 to Improvements and Equipment.

From Safe and Sober Grant 2004, appropriate $7,500 to Personal Services.

From H.I.D.T.A. Grant 2004, appropriate $54,500 to Personal Services.

From Drug Knock and Talk Grant 2004, appropriate $57,000 to PersonalServices and $2,000 to Materials and Supplies.

From Property Crime 2004 Grant, appropriate $33,800 to Personal Services, $2,200 to Materials and Supplies and $1,100 to Contractual Services.

From Integrated Criminal Apprehension 2004 Grant, appropriate $41,000 to Personal Services and $2,300 to Materials and Supplies.

From Anti-Terrorism Grant 2004, appropriate $12,400 to Personal Services and $700 to Contractual Services.

SUBTOTAL From FY 2004 Grant Funds $ 1,501,800

GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 2,499,700

2. The Police Grants Special Revenue Fund budget presented to the Council on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action of this Council, be and is hereby adopted.

3. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend and receive the funds herein authorized, and in accordance with the assurances contained in the Federal and State grants received by the City. It is further recognized that "Notices of Funds Available" have been received only through the close of the Federal and State fiscal years and that the availability of funds beyond the Federal and State fiscal years is an estimate only. The Chief Administrative Officer or his designee shall not approve any allotment which would exceed the amount for which a "Notice of Funds Available" has not been received and the Director of Finance shall not approve any expenditure which is not in accordance with such allotment.

4. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

5. Program Income - All receipts generated directly from activities funded from intergovernmental sources shall be deposited into the proper Special Revenue Fund in accordance with Federal or State Law.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 170 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE FLEET SERVICES INTERNAL SERVICE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the year 2004; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has created a Fleet Services Internal Service Fund whose purpose is to provide funding for the maintenance of the City’s motorized fleet.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated receipts of the Fleet Services Risk Internal Service Fund for 2004 are hereby established as follows:

Transfer from General Fund $2,416,900

(Includes $25,000 from City Marshal’s accounts)

Transfer from Water and Sewerage Fund 542,000

Transfer from MPC Fund 5,000

Transfer from Community Development Fund 50,800

Transfer from Golf Fund 18,500

Transfer from Retained Risk Fund 2,500

Miscellaneous Revenues 49,700

TOTAL $3,085,400

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the Fleet Services Internal Service Fund’s receipts for the year 2003:

Personal Services $1,281,100

Materials and Supplies 1,024,900

Contractual Services 715,400

Other Charges 0

Improvements and Equipment 0

Transfer to General Fund 64,000

TOTAL $3,085,400

3. The Fleet Services Internal Service Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

4. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized, subject to the provisions of Section 26-174 of the Code of Ordinances relative to the settlement of claims against the City.

5. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 171 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE SHREVEPORT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the City Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the year 2004; and

WHEREAS, the Shreveport Redevelopment Agency (SRA) is authorized by R.S. 33:4625 and the City’s General Redevelopment Plan to acquire and to land bank vacant adjudicated property for future redevelopment projects and to acquire other property for current redevelopment projects in Redevelopment Areas, and the City is authorized by law and by contract with the SRA to provide funds for the acquisition of said properties; and

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated receipts of the Shreveport Redevelopment Agency Special Revenue Fund for 2004 are hereby established as follows:

Estimated Fund Balance as of 1/1/2004 $ 0

Miscellaneous Revenue 75,000

TOTAL $ 75,000

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures and projects are hereby appropriated out of the Shreveport Redevelopment Agency Special Revenue Fund’s receipts for the year 2004:

Contractual Services $16,000

Improvements & Equipment 59,000

TOTAL $75,000

3. The Shreveport Redevelopment Agency’s Special Revenue Fund budget as presented to the City Council on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

4 Capital Transfers - All amounts authorized by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance to be financed from the receipts of the Shreveport Redevelopment Agency Special Revenue Fund shall be transferred to the proper capital funds as provided by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance.

5 Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized.

6 Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO.172 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Article 7, Section 7.02 (a) of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has available in fiscal year 2004 certain federal and state funds granted to the City for environmental purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has created an Environmental Grants Special Revenue Fund to account for these grants: and

WHEREAS, 2004 appropriations are necessary only for those grants which are new or for which the appropriation is increased or decreased, since the original appropriations remain in effect until they are amended or the grant is closed.

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

1. Appropriations: The following funds are hereby appropriated for the grants in the column titled "2004 Budget." For those grants listed herein, total spending for all years shall not exceed the amount appropriated herein, unless such amount is increased by subsequent action of the City Council. For active grants which are not listed herein, but which have been previously appropriated in a budget ordinance for the Environmental Grants Special Revenue Fund, the prior appropriation shall remain in effect. The Director of Finance is authorized to expend same in accordance with law, to the extent that funds are available.

2004 2004

Grant: CHANGE BUDGET

Brownfields Assessment Grant 0 $ 32,700

Brownfields Supplemental Assessment 0 $ 300,000

Grant

Brownfields Greenspace Grant 0 $ 50,000

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund 0 $ 1,000,000

Brownfields Job Training Grant 0 $ 200,000

Brownfields Economic Development 0 $ 1,000,000

Initiative

Brownfields Economic Development 0 $ 429,100

Initiative (2001)

Brownfields Economic Development 0 $ 300,000

Initiative (2002)

EPA Clean Air Grant 0 $ 400,000

Cross Lake Watershed Control Grant 0 $ 100,000

GRAND TOTAL - 2004 CHANGE $ 0

GRAND TOTAL - 2004 BUDGET $3,811,800

2. The Environmental Grants Special Revenue Fund budget presented to the Council on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action of this Council, be and is hereby adopted.

3. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend and receive the funds herein authorized, and in accordance with the assurances contained in the Federal and State grants received by the City. It is further recognized that "Notices of Funds Available" have been received only through the close of the Federal and State fiscal years and that the availability of funds beyond the Federal and State fiscal years is an estimate only. The Chief Administrative Officer or his designee shall not approve any allotment which would exceed the amount for which a "Notice of Funds Available" has not been received and the Director of Finance shall not approve any expenditure which is not in accordance with such allotment.

4. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

5. Program Income - All receipts generated directly from activities funded from intergovernmental sources shall be deposited into the proper Special Revenue Fund in accordance with Federal or State Law.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO.173 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE DOWNTOWN PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Charter of the City of Shreveport requires the adoption of a comprehensive operating budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2004; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has created a Downtown Parking Enterprise Fund, whose purpose is to use funds collected from parking activities to promote improved parking facilities in the downtown area; and

WHEREAS, the revenues and expenditures of this fund need to be appropriated as a part of the City’s annual budget process.

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated Downtown Parking Enterprise Fund receipts for the year 2004 are hereby established and adopted as follows:

Estimated Fund Balance 1/1/2004 $ 619,800

External Service Charges $ 290,000

Fines and Forfeitures 375,000

Interest 8,000

Miscellaneous Revenue 0

TOTAL $1,292,800

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth in the following classes of expenditures are hereby appropriated out of the Downtown Parking Fund’s receipts for the year 2004:

Contractual Services $ 408,000

Operating Reserves 884,800

TOTAL $1,292,800

3. The Downtown Parking Enterprise Fund budget presented to the City Council by the Mayor on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action by this Council, be and the same is hereby adopted.

4. Capital Transfers - All amounts authorized by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance to be financed from Downtown Parking Fund receipts shall be transferred to the proper capital funds as provided by the Capital Improvements Budget ordinance.

5. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend or receive funds herein authorized.

6. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized except in accordance with Section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 174 OF 2003

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE DOWNTOWN ENTERTAINMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS THEREIN AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has created a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District within a portion of the Downtown Riverfront area; and

WHEREAS, the City has created the Downtown Entertainment Economic Development Special Revenue Fund to account for the additional sales taxes generated within the TIF District and to budget the receipts therefrom

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

1. Estimated Receipts - The estimated Downtown Entertainment Special Revenue Fund receipts for the year 2004 are hereby established as follows:

Estimated Fund Balance as of 1/1/2004 $ 88,000

Sales Taxes from the TIF District $ 175,000

TOTAL REVENUES $ 263,000

2. Appropriations - The funds set forth herein are hereby appropriated out of the Downtown Entertainment Economic Development Special Revenue Fund’s receipts for the year 2004:

Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $ 200,000

Operating Reserves $ 63,000

TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 263,000

3. The Downtown Entertainment Economic Development Special Revenue Fund budget presented to the City Council on October 1, 2003, as amended by subsequent action of the City Council, be and is hereby adopted.

4. Administration - The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute all contracts, deeds, grant documents and other legal instruments necessary to expend and receive the funds herein authorized, excluding contracts for special legal counsel.

5. Donation of City Funds - No funds herein appropriated shall be donated, loaned or pledged, and no expenditures for such purposes shall be authorized, except in accordance with section 26-53 of the Code of Ordinances, as it exists now or may hereafter be amended.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof shall be 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.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance will be effective on January 1, 2004.

ORDINANCE NO. 193 OF 2003

Offered by Councilman _______ and seconded by Councilman ________:

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 $12,485,000 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.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana (the "Issuer"), owns and operates a revenue-producing public utility comprised of a combined waterworks plant and system and sewer plant and system (the "System"); and

WHEREAS, the Issuer is authorized to borrow money and issue revenue bonds, payable solely from the income and revenues to be derived by the Issuer from the operation of the System to refund a portion of the Issuer's outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2002A and Series 2002B (collectively, the "Refunded Bonds"), which were purchased by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and the proceeds were used to finance construction, improvements and extensions to the System, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14-A of Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended (R.S. 39:1444-1455) (the "Act"), and other constitutional and statutory authority; and

WHEREAS, the Issuer adopted Resolution No. 131 of 1984 (the "General Bond Resolution") on June 12, 1984, as amended and supplemented, authorizing the issuance from time to time of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds of the Issuer on the terms and conditions set forth in the General Bond Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the General Bond Resolution provides that the details of the Bonds of each Series of Bonds issued thereunder shall be specified in a supplemental resolution adopted by the Issuer authorizing the issuance of such Series of Bonds, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations established in the General Bond Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes by this Twenty First Supplemental Ordinance to authorize the issuance of $12,485,000 principal amount of its Bonds to be the Twenty First Series of Bonds issued under the General Bond Resolution and to be designated "Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2003 Refunding Series C" (the "Series 2003C Bonds"), and to specify the terms and conditions of the Series 2003C Bonds; and

WHEREAS, the Issuer has heretofore issued $40,940,000 original principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1986 Series A (the "Series 1986A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Third Supplemental Resolution; $31,080,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1986 Refunding Series B (the "Series 1986B Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Fourth Supplemental Resolution, $45,595,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1986 Refunding Series C (the "Series 1986C Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Fifth Supplemental Resolution; $11,568,877.37 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1989 Series A (the "Series 1989A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Sixth Supplemental Resolution; $11,125,333.62 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1990 Series A (the "Series 1990A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Seventh Supplemental Resolution; $4,623,201.02 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1990 Series B (the "Series 1990B Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Eighth Supplemental Resolution; $7,187,914.56 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1991 Series A (the "Series 1991A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Ninth Supplemental Resolution; $3,106,823.80 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1992 Series A (the "Series 1992A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Tenth Supplemental Resolution; $40,153,936.80 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1992 Refunding Series B (the "Series 1992B Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Eleventh Supplemental Resolution; $10,290,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1993 Series B (the "Series 1993B Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Twelfth Supplemental Resolution; $28,100,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1994 Series A (the "Series 1994A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Thirteenth Supplemental Resolution; $6,060,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 1997 Refunding Series A (the "Series 1997A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Fourteenth Supplemental Resolution; $10,210,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2000 Series A (the "Series 2000A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Seventeenth Supplemental Resolution; $21,169,624 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2002 Series A (the "Series 2002A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Eighteenth Supplemental Resolution; and $40,735,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2003 Refunding Series A (the "Series 2003A Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Nineteenth Supplemental Resolution; and $18,800,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2003 Refunding Series B (the "Series 2003B Bonds") pursuant to the General Bond Resolution and the Twentieth Supplemental Resolution.

WHEREAS, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (the "Bond Insurer") is issuing a policy of municipal bond insurance which insures the payment of principal of and interest on the Series 2003C Bonds (the "Bond Insurance Policy (Series 2003C)"); and

WHEREAS, Bonds may be issued pursuant to the General Bond Resolution which shall constitute Prior Lien Bonds provided certain conditions are met as provided in the General Bond Resolution; and

WHEREAS, said terms and conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of the Series 2003C Bonds and, accordingly, the Series 2003C Bonds shall constitute Prior Lien Bonds;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, acting as the governing authority of said City, that:

ARTICLE I

Definitions; Findings and Interpretation

Section 101. Definitions. Unless the context shall clearly indicate some other meaning, all words and terms used in this Supplemental Resolution which are defined in Resolution No. 131 of 1984 adopted by this Council on June 12, 1984, entitled: "A resolution authorizing the issuance from time to time of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, prescribing the form, fixing the details and providing for the payment of principal of and interest on such bonds and for the rights of the holders thereof, as amended and supplemented by Resolution No. 152 of 1984 (the "First Supplemental Resolution") adopted on July 24, 1984, Resolution No. 160 of 1985 (the "Second Supplemental Resolution") adopted on July 9, 1985, Resolution No. 170 of 1986 (the "Third Supplemental Resolution") adopted on August 26, 1986, Resolution No. 180 of 1986 (the "Fourth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on September 9, 1986, Resolution No. 252 of 1986 (the "Fifth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on December 9, 1986, Resolution No. 147 of 1989 (the "Sixth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on August 22, 1989, Resolution No. 118 of 1990 (the "Seventh Supplemental Resolution") adopted on July 24, 1990, Resolution No. 193 of 1990 (the "Eighth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on November 27, 1990, Resolution No. 78 of 1991 (the "Ninth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on May 28, 1991, Resolution No. 1 of 1992 (the "Tenth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on January 14, 1992, Resolution No. 43 of 1993 (the "Twelfth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on May 25, 1993, Resolution No. 44 of 1994 (the "Thirteenth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on May 25, 1994, Resolution No. 153 of 1993 (the "Fourteenth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on September 28, 1993, Resolution No. 58 of 1994 (the "Fifteenth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on April 26, 1994, Ordinance No. 76 of 2002 (the "Eighteenth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on June 25, 2002, Ordinance No. 132 of 2003 (the "Nineteenth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on September 24, 2002, Ordinance No. 27 of 2003 (the "Twentieth Supplemental Resolution") adopted on May 13, 2003 and Ordinance No. 193 of 2003 (the "Twenty First Supplemental Resolution") shall, for all purposes of this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution, have the respective meanings given to them in the General Bond Resolution, as amended. In addition, unless the context shall clearly indicate some other meaning, the following terms shall, for all purposes of the General Bond Resolution, First Supplemental Resolution, Second Supplemental Resolution, Third Supplemental Resolution, Fourth Supplemental Resolution, Fifth Supplemental Resolution, Sixth Supplemental Resolution, Seventh Supplemental Resolution, Eighth Supplemental Resolution, Ninth Supplemental Resolution, Tenth Supplemental Resolution, Eleventh Supplemental Resolution, Twelfth Supplemental Resolution, Thirteenth Supplemental Resolution, Fourteenth Supplemental Resolution, Fifteenth Supplemental Resolution, Eighteenth Supplemental Resolution, Nineteenth Supplemental Resolution, Twentieth Supplemental Resolution and of this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution or of any resolution or other instrument amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto have the following meanings:

"Bond Insurer" shall mean Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, or any successor thereto.

"Bond Insurer Policy" shall mean the municipal bond new issue insurance policy issued by the Bond Insurer and guaranteeing payment of principal of and interest on the Series 2003C Bonds.

"Fiscal Agent" shall mean the Bond Insurer's fiscal agent or its successor.

"Twenty First Supplemental Resolution" shall mean this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution as the same may be supplemented or amended hereafter.

"Redemption Price of the Refunded Bonds" shall mean a price equal to 100% of the price of the Refunded Bonds, without premium plus accrued interest to the redemption date.

"Refunded Bonds" shall mean the portion of the Issuer’s outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds as follows:

SERIES

MATURITIES2002A

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

20142002B 2004

"Regular Record Date" shall mean with respect to the Series 2003C Bonds, the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding each Interest Payment Date.

"Series 2003C Bonds" or "Bonds" shall mean the $12,485,000 principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2003 Refunding Series C, issued pursuant to the General Bond Resolution as amended and supplemented to the date hereof.

"Underwriter" shall mean Stephens, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Unless or except as the context shall clearly indicate otherwise or may otherwise require in this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution: (i) all references to a particular section, paragraph or subdivision of the General Bond Resolution or this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution, as the case may be, are to the corresponding section, paragraph or subdivision of the General Bond Resolution only, or this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution only, as the case may be; (ii) the terms "herein", "hereunder", "hereby", "hereto", "hereof', and any similar terms, refer to this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution as a whole and not to any particular section, paragraph or subdivision thereof; (iii) the terms "therein", "thereunder", "thereby", "thereto", "thereof", and any similar terms, refer to the General Bond Resolution, and to the General Bond Resolution as a whole and not to any particular section, paragraph or subdivision thereof, and (iv) the term "heretofore" means before the time of effectiveness of this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution, and the term "hereafter" means after the time of the effectiveness of this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution.

Section 102. Findings and Determinations. The Governing Authority hereby finds and determines:

(a) The Issuer is authorized under the Act to issue its revenue bonds in such amounts as may be necessary for the purpose of refunding the Refunded Bonds, and is further authorized pursuant to the General Bond Resolution, as amended and supplemented to the date hereof, to issue the Series 2003C Bonds for such purpose by means of a Supplemental Resolution adopted pursuant to and in accordance with Sections 204 and 205 of the General Bond Resolution.

(b) The Issuer has sold the Series 2003C Bonds to the Underwriter all in accordance with the terms of the Bond Purchase Agreement dated November 21, 2003.

(c) The Series 2003C Bonds, when issued, shall constitute Prior Lien Bonds as provided in the General Bond Resolution, as amended.

(d) It is anticipated that the Refunded Bonds will be redeemed on December 16, 2003 and will be payable on such date solely from proceeds of the Series 2003C Bonds, which amounts have been calculated to be sufficient to pay the Redemption Price of the Refunded Bonds.

Section 103. Interpretation. In this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) words importing persons include firms, associations and corporations, (b) words importing the singular include the plural and vice versa and (c) words of the masculine gender shall be deemed and considered to include correlative words of the feminine and neuter genders.

ARTICLE II

Authorization and Details of Series 2003C Bonds

Section 201. Authorization and Designation. Pursuant to the provisions of the General Bond Resolution, as amended, this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution and the Act, there is hereby authorized the issuance of Twelve Million Four Hundred Eighty Five Thousand Dollars ($12,485,000) original principal amount of Series 2003C Bonds of the Issuer to be designated "Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2003 Refunding Series C", for the purpose of refunding the Refunded Bonds and paying costs of issuing the Series 2003C Bonds. The Series 2003C Bonds shall be special obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the Revenues, shall be entitled pursuant to and in accordance with the General Bond Resolution, as amended, to the pledge and lien created thereby and shall be otherwise entitled to the security and benefits thereof. The Series 2003C Bonds shall be issued in the form set forth in Exhibit A hereto.

The Series 2003C Bonds, together with the Series 1993B Bonds, the Series 1997A Bonds, the Series 2000A Bonds, the Series 2001A, B and C Bonds, the Series 2002 Bonds, and the Series 2003B Bonds are payable as to both principal and interest solely from the Revenues to be derived from the operation of the System, subject to the prior payment of the reasonable and necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of the System and the Bonds do not constitute an indebtedness or pledge of the general credit of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional and statutory limitation of indebtedness.

Section 202. Principal Amount and Type. The Series 2003C Bonds shall be issued in the aggregate principal amount of Twelve Million Four Hundred Eighty Five Thousand Dollars ($12,485,000).

Section 203. Denominations, Dates, Maturities and Interest. The Series 2003C Bonds are issuable as fully registered bonds. Interest on the Bonds (payable June 1 and December 1 of each year, commencing June 1, 2004) is payable by check mailed to the registered owner. The Bonds are in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, and in fully registered form.

The Series 2003C Bonds shall mature on the dates and shall be in the aggregate principal amounts set forth below:

Due

(June 1)Aggregate

Principal

Amount

Interest

Rate

Yield2004$1,380,000.004.000%1.100%2005925,000.004.0001.4202006960,000.004.0001.78020071,000,000.004.0002.08020081,040,000.004.0002.44020091,085,000.004.0002.72020101,125,000.004.0003.02020111,170,000.004.0003.30020121,220,000.004.0003.55020131,265,000.004.0003.67020141,315,000.004.0003.800The Principal of the Bonds are payable at the principal corporate trust office of Regions Bank, in the City of Montgomery, Alabama, as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar with respect to the Series 2003C Bonds upon surrender thereof.

Each Series 2003C Bond shall be dated the date of delivery. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the Series 2003C Bonds shall bear interest from the date thereof or from the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, as the case may be. However, when there is no existing default in the payment of interest on the Series 2003C Bonds, each Series 2003C Bond executed after the Regular Record Date for any Interest Payment Date but prior to such Interest Payment Date, shall bear interest from such Interest Payment Date provided, however, that if and to the extent that the Issuer shall default in the payment of the interest due on any Interest Payment Date, then all such Series 2003C Bonds shall bear interest from the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, unless no interest has been paid on the Series 2003C Bonds, in which case from the date of delivery.

The person in whose name any Series 2003C Bond is registered at the Regular Record Date with respect to an Interest Payment Date shall in all cases be entitled to receive the interest payable on such Interest Payment Date (unless such Series 2003C Bond has been called for redemption on a redemption date which is prior to such Interest Payment Date) notwithstanding the cancellation of such Series 2003C Bond upon any registration of transfer or exchange thereof subsequent to such Regular Record Date and prior to such Interest Payment Date.

ARTICLE III

No Redemption Prior to Maturity

Section 301. No Redemption. The Series 2003C Bonds are not subject to redemption prior to maturity.

ARTICLE IV

Application Of Proceeds of Series 2003C Bonds

Section 401. Obligation of the Issuer in Connection with the Issuance of the Series 2003C Bonds. This Governing Authority hereby binds and obligates itself and the Issuer to use or cause to be used the proceeds derived from the sale of the Series 2003C Bonds to refund the Refunded Bonds and to pay costs of issuance associated with the Series 2003C Bonds. The Director of Finance is authorized to pay costs of issuance upon receipt of appropriate invoices.

ARTICLE V

Execution and Form of Series 2003C Bonds

Section 501. Execution and Form of Series 2003C Bonds. The Series 2003C Bonds issuable hereunder shall be executed by the Mayor, Clerk of Council and Director of Finance, respectively, substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A hereto, with such necessary or appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are required or permitted by law or by the General Bond Resolution, as amended and supplemented by this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution. The Series 2003C Bonds shall be lettered "R" and shall be numbered separately from 1 upward.

ARTICLE VI

Sale of the Series 2003C Bonds

Section 601. Sale of Bonds. The sale of the Series 2003C Bonds to the Underwriter is hereby in all respects approved, ratified and confirmed and after their execution, the Series 2003C Bonds shall be delivered to the Underwriter or its agents or assigns, upon receipt by the Director of Finance of the Issuer of the agreed purchase price. The execution and delivery on behalf of the Issuer of the Bond Purchase Agreement dated November 21, 2003, is hereby approved and ratified in all respects. The Mayor and Director of Finance of the Issuer are each hereby empowered, authorized and directed to execute and deliver or cause to be executed and delivered all documents required to be executed on behalf of the Issuer or deemed by them necessary or advisable to implement this Supplemental Resolution or facilitate the sale of the Series 2003C Bonds.

Section 602. Official Statement. The Governing Authority hereby approves the form and content of the Preliminary Official Statement dated November 21, 2003, pertaining to the Series 2003C Bonds submitted to the Governing Authority and hereby ratifies its prior use by the Underwriter in connection with the sale of the Series 2003C Bonds. The Governing Authority further approves the form and content of the final Official Statement dated as of November 21, 2003 and hereby authorizes and directs the execution by the Mayor or Director of Finance of the Issuer and delivery of such final Official Statement to the Underwriter for use in connection with the public offering of the Series 2003C Bonds.

ARTICLE VII

Notice of Events of Default

Section 701. Notice to Bond Insurer. The Trustee hereby agrees to give immediate notice to the Bond Insurer of the occurrence of any Event of Default under the General Bond Resolution, as amended and supplemented to the date hereof, including, without limitation, this Twenty First Supplemental Resolution.

ARTICLE VIII

Municipal Bond Insurance

Section 801. Municipal Bond Insurance. The Bond Insurer has committed to issue the Bond Insurance Policy (Series 2003C) with respect to the payments due for principal of and interest on the Series 2003C Bonds to the Paying Agent. Upon issuance, the Bond Insurance Policy (Series 2003C) will be on file and available for inspection at the principal office of the Paying Agent. The summary of the form of policy relating to the Bond Insurance Policy (Series 2003C) is hereby authorized to appear on the Series 2003C Bonds, substantially in the form set forth in Exhibit A hereto.

Section 802. Payments to Owners under Bond Insurance; Subrogation of Bond Insurer. For so long as the Bond Insurance Policy (Series 2003C) shall be in full force and effect, the Issuer, the Paying Agent and the Trustee agree to comply with the following provisions:

(i) If, on the third day preceding any interest payment date for the Series 2003C Bonds there is not on deposit with the Paying Agent sufficient moneys available to pay all principal of and interest on the Series 2003C Bonds due on such date, the Paying Agent shall immediately notify the Bond Insurer and the State Street Bank & Trust Company, N.A., New York, New York, or its successor as its Fiscal Agent (the "Fiscal Agent") of the amount of such deficiency. If, by said interest payment date, the Issuer has not provided the amount of such deficiency, the Paying Agent shall simultaneously make available to the Bond Insurer and to the Fiscal Agent the registration books for the Series 2003C Bonds maintained by the Paying Agent. In addition:

A. The Paying Agent shall provide the Bond Insurer with a list of the Bondholders entitled to receive principal or interest payments from the Bond Insurer under the terms of the Bond Insurance Policy (Series 2003C) and shall make arrangements for the Bond Insurer and its Fiscal Agent (1) to mail checks or drafts to Bondholders entitled to receive full or partial interest payments from the Bond Insurer and (2) to pay principal of the Series 2003C Bonds surrendered to the Fiscal Agent by the Bondholders entitled to receive full or partial principal payments from the Bond Insurer; and

B. The Paying Agent shall, at the time it makes the registration books available to the Bond Insurer pursuant to paragraph A above, notify Bondholders entitled to receive the payment of principal of or interest on the Series 2003C Bonds from the Bond Insurer (1) as to the fact of such entitlement, (2) that the Bond Insurer will remit to them all or part of the interest payments coming due subject to the terms of the Bond Insurance Policy (Series 2003C), (3) that, except as provided in paragraph (ii) below, in the event that any Bondholder is entitled to receive full payment of principal from the Bond Insurer, such Bondholder must tender his Series 2003C Bond with the instrument of transfer in the form provided on the Series 2003C Bond executed in the name of the Bond Insurer, and (4) that, except as provided in paragraph (ii) below, in the event that such Bondholder is entitled to receive partial payment of principal from the Bond Insurer, such Bondholder must tender his Series 2003C Bond for payment first to the Paying Agent, which shall note on such Series 2003C Bond the portion of principal paid by the Paying Agent, and then, with an acceptable form of assignment executed in the name of the Bond Insurer, to the Fiscal Agent, which will then pay the unpaid portion of principal to the Bondholder subject to the terms of the Bond Insurance Pol