CC 3827

05 31 04

COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

MAY 25, 2004

The Regular Meeting of the City Council of The City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, was called to order by Councilman Carmody at 3:02 p.m., Tuesday, May 25, 2004, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Councilman Walford: If I can deviate from an invocation for just a second, a week ago last Friday we lost a Shreveporter in Iraq, Commander Sgt/Major Carl Barnhill was a friend of mine, somebody that I served with and so what I would like to ask you to do is just take a moment of silence for him. Thank you and I know his family would appreciate that.

Invocation was given by Councilman Walford.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Green, Gibson, Jackson (arrived at 3:10), Carmody, Walford, Lester (arrived at 3:07), and Hogan. 7. Absent None.

Approve Minutes: Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to approve the Administrative Conference Summary Minutes of May 10, 2004 and the Council Meeting Meetings of May 11, 2004. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Green. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Lester and Jackson. 2.

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

Councilman Carmody: I believe I’d seen the Mayor come in, I didn’t see him make it to the dais. In the meantime, I would like to recognize Mr. Bob Moore. If I could ask Mr. Moore to stand. There you are sir. I understand that you’re here with Linwood Middle School 7^th Grade Class and that y’all are studying -- this is your Social Studies class, y’all are studying City Government.

Mr. Moore: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: How many students you have with you today?

Mr. Moore: Thirty.

Councilman Carmody: Could I ask them to stand so that they can be seen by those folks at home watching.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Mr. Moore, hope everybody learns a little something today about the City Government. Mr. Mayor, do you have any distinguished guest you would like to recognize sir?

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, I know that we have Pastor Michael Brown, the "sign man" is with us today. Actually, we do have a group of - - - I’m not real sure if a Councilman can recognize the Centenary Ladies Softball team. Are you doing that Mike?

Councilman Gibson: Actually, three of us are.

Mayor Hightower: Okay, I’ll pass.

Councilman Carmody: Very good sir. You can join with us in celebrating.

Reports:

Councilman Carmody: Yesterday, we received correspondence on the Convention Center and the Convention Center Hotel Project as well as our Property Standards Program. Are there any questions today for the Administration regarding these two reports? Mr. Mayor, I did have one question for Mr. Antee. I know he’s not in the room, but –

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chair, can we back up on the resolution?

Councilman Carmody: Oh, excuse me. Thank y’all. It’s not on the agenda and I did not pick it up. Thank you very much. It was pointed out that we actually went over our awards. I believe that we have one resolution today.

Councilman Green: It hadn’t been added.

Councilman Carmody: So, we have to add these items to the agenda then, and I believe this is the only --

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Chairman, I do have a proclamation I’m adding in recognition of National Military Month. Whenever you’re ready.

Councilman Carmody: Let’s see gentlemen, we’re actually going to be adding legislation to the agenda at this point in the agenda.

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

1. Resolution No. 129 of 2004: A Resolution to congratulate and salute the accomplishments of the Ladies Softball Team of Centenary College and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

1. Resolution No. 130 of 2004: A Resolution to declare and recognize the month of May, 2004 as "National Military Appreciation Month" and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

The Deputy Clerk read Resolutions 129 and 130 of 2004 to Distinguished Guest

[See Resolutions on Second Reading and Final Passage]

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chair. I have asked a couple of people today to come to the meeting. One is Captain Jerry Reynolds. He’s a member of the 93^rd Bomb Squadron, part of the 917^th Fighter Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base. Cpt. Reynolds come forward please, and also one of our own Shreveport Police Officers, Monica Foster, would you come forward please. And she has served also in the capacity as a Staff Sergeant, and she had spent one year in Kuwait in Military Intelligence. I would also like to ask Pastor Norman Sutton to come forward. Pastor, would you come forward please. Pastor Sutton is one of my constituents. He lives in Lone Oaks in my district and he had called me a few days ago and asked about the possibility of doing something like this, a resolution of support for not only the people at Barksdale here, but also we have several branches of the military within this area. And so, it was upon his idea basically, that I drew this support together, drew this proclamation. And I would just like to say personally that I appreciate your service and your dedication to our country and the sacrifice that not only you have made, but also your family has made. I’ve known – there are people that are in my church that have served as well. And as they’ve been away, we’ve tried to minister to their families while they’re away. Because there are certainly some serious needs there in the family when the husband, or the wife or the mother or father is gone, and I would just like to say on behalf of this Council here, also if there is anyone in the audience here that has served in any branch of the military, Reservist, Active, Retired, in any capacity, and also Councilman Walford, that includes you, you’ve been in the Army also, I’d like you to stand as well and anyone else in the audience here, I would like you to stand please. Let’s give them a round of applause. Councilman Walford, would you come with me for a moment please. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I’d like to give these folks an opportunity to say anything, if they would like to. I told them they don’t have to give a speech, but if they would like to say something they are welcomed to, if it’s okay with you.

Cpt Reynolds: I’d just like to thank you all for having us. We appreciate it. Our extended family back here in Shreveport/Bossier area really makes us have a smile when we come back home. And you all pulled this off each time we go with such nice prayers and all those good things that make us feel like our families are taken care of back home and that means more to us than anything. So, thank you all very much.

Officer Foster: I pretty much think the Captain said it all. The greatest feeling in the world is when you come back home and everybody shows us their appreciation. It just brings a smile to our faces. Thank you.

Councilman Hogan: I would also like to ask Pastor Sutton, who I just discovered a few minutes ago, his son is Mark Sutton who is the Pastor of the Brookwood Baptist Church in my District. Excuse me, Councilman Gibson, it was in my District. It’s now in your District.

Councilman Gibson: We share it.

Councilman Hogan: That’s right. And so Pastor, I would like to ask you to come and say a prayer on behalf of these folks here, of the soldiers, the men and women who are off fighting for us now and also a prayer of appreciation for those who have passed. Those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country to give us the freedom we enjoy today. If you would come and say a word of prayer with us?

Pastor Sutton: May we pray. Dear Lord, until we have heard and seen some instances of what our young men are doing in the service and in Iraq and in Afghanistan and other places like this, oh, we thank you Lord for what they are doing. They’re not only serving and protecting and guarding and keeping our liberties, both for here and for the world, but Lord, they are doing good things to show the people of especially in Iraq, that America cares and America is a God fearing country. We pray you to bless these who are serving us now in foreign countries. We thank you for this resolution. Pray that our Churches throughout this city will recognize this and give proper recognition to all of our service men and women. We thank you for each one who stood today and for these two especially who have served. Bless their minds Lord and lead them your hand. And give protection Lord, to each of our young men, that they all come back safe. We ask in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Pastor and also would like to mention, just last week, we had a unit from the National Guard here at Fort Humbug deployed and so, let’s remember those men and women in our prayers too. I believe that Mayor, you even gave the send off speech for them. Is that right? Okay, thank you. That’s all I have Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: I was going to ask, were there any members in the audience that served in Iraq and Afghanistan as well? I did not know if we might have missed some people. If I could ask you to please stand.

Councilman Hogan: Would you mind giving us your name and your serial and rank in the service?

Mr. Seets: My name is Marvin Seets, I’m a Sergeant with the 1083^rd Transportation Company and we served in Iraq and Kuwait.

Councilman Jackson: Let me say to all of you who have served and certainly, you represent a very large group of people, who in fact defend the very freedom that we enjoy and so, it just seems so inadequate to just say thank you. But I certainly hope you’ll receive that as a legitimate and authentic appreciation for what you’ve done and what you continue to do to make ours the greatest nation in the world. We’ve got faults, we’ve got a lot of issues, but when it comes to prosecuting a war, when it comes to what we do in the name of the United States of America, it’s just one United States of America. And as far as I’m concerned, you all protect that liberty and the freedom that we all enjoy. And so, I certainly say thank you and particularly to the two officers who also serve. Very often, people who are in reserve or who are in other lines of military duty, come home and do something a little bit different. But you all come home and continue to serve and to protect even on the domestic shores and in this City and certainly, your life is characterized by its service. And so, we want to say thank you and all of the politics and all the political rhetoric we hear from D. C. To Shreveport, it’s all meaningless when compared to the fact that you all go out everyday and put your lives and your families’ prosperity on the line as you do. And again, I wish there was something other than thank you that we could say, but if you could understand and appreciate it, I just want to say thank you for what you’ve done, not just for me and my family, but for the City of Shreveport and for the United States of America.

Councilman Lester: Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman, I would definitely echo what Councilman Jackson has so eloquently stated. A lot of times, when you talk about military service, if you don’t have a family member or a friend or something of that nature, it does not become actually relevant to you, or it doesn’t become relevant until it touches your particular doorstep. Our country is in a midst of a situation over in Iraq and again, regardless of whether you believe we should be there or shouldn’t be there, the thing that everyone does is support the troops. And I’m just really proud of the work that you have done for our Country across the generations, across the racial lines. The one thing that comes out of a war situation is -- it’s us and them. And it’s not a Black thing, it’s not a White thing, it’s not a rich thing, its not a poor thing, it’s an American thing. And I think that the negative side of war is that lives are being placed on the line, but the good part about it is, if there is a benefit to be derived, is that in all of our chaos, we can still come together to defend what our country is all about. So, I just say as a son of a Viet Nam Veteran, I really appreciate you sacrifice. Certainly, everything that you’ve done to keep our country safe and in particular to our Officers, because again like Councilman Jackson said, you protect us both domestically and abroad, and we’re very glad to see you served and made it back. And a special thank you to Brother Seets who is my fraternity brother. And everyone was very concerned when he got called up, but we’re very glad to see him to know that God ordained it such that he could go and serve his country and come back in one piece and continue to serve his city. So we’re very thankful for that. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Mr. Chair. Obviously congratulations and thank you for your service to your country. To all the servicemen and obviously Memorial Day is a very special day for everybody. I know that this country worked hard to get a memorial completed up in Washington, D. C., because the men and women that we’re losing by the thousands who are passing away, back in -- past World War. But I think it’s appropriate to point out that your fighting is our pledge of allegiance says clearly ‘one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all’. We’ve heard as Councilmen up here, we’ve had a lot of issues to deal with over the last couple of years dealing with things like justice and liberty, and being indivisible. And as a community, I think that’s (unclear) that those words can’t be taken for granted, because I know that we can’t take you for granted. It’s real what’s taking place over seas and depending on what political rhetoric comes out of Washington, D. C., the fact is that y’all can tell the story better than we can and you saw first hand what’s taking place over there. And you’re fighting for those words in our pledge. So, as a Councilman out in Southeast Shreveport on behalf of the constituents that I represent, thank you very much for the courage that you’ve shown to serve the country. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Mr. Gibson. One last thought gentlemen that ‘blessed are those who are the peacemakers’. And my thought in this time of where our Country finds itself that we are in a conflict in which are we are trying to manifest peace. It might not appear like that to the rest of the world, but my heartfelt thanks to you and your families especially for the sacrifices that you make, the ultimate sacrifices that have been made and their families and I think it very appropriate that we again commend you for your service and thank you. Godspeed to all of you.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chair, I know that this college splits in two District lines, but I think it would be appropriate if we have Ms. Lansdale, one of the players come up and at least introduce the attendees. I know that we have a proud mom who is also very instrumental and educational with the Caddo Parish School Board System. So, if we could, I would indulge us to have Ms. Lansdale to make a few comments.

Ms. Lansdale: Hi. First of all I just want to thank you all for this great honor. It means more than you guys will ever know that it means to us. And we want to thank the Mayor for coming out and throwing our first pitch in our first conference game. (Unclear) will remember it and (unclear) bringing us luck, because we ended up winning three our of four of those games, so that mean a lot to us. And you know a lot of us couldn’t be here today, because people have gone home and we’re from all over the country. Our pitcher, that’s who you guys asked, she’s from California and she’s gone back home and we have players from Connecticut and all over, but here are a few of the players. I’m Jordan, I play 2^nd Base. That’s Tracy Smith, she’s our Center Fielder. Lori Kowalski, who is our Catcher and Megan Hall who is a Designated Player and Catcher as well. We just want to all thank you very much for this great honor. We appreciate it.

Reports

Convention Center and Hotel Project Report:

Councilman Carmody: I see that the Council has been provided with some information from Mr. Antee.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chair, could I – yesterday, Mr, Antee had brought information before this Council regarding a financial gap increase. Could I ask the Administration over the next couple of days to provide in writing to the Council the specifics on what has changed from the previous in terms of that gap in terms of where it is today? So we could be able to look at that information.

Mr. Antee: There’s nothing new other than what we have provided on numerous occasions to the Council. We are waiting on the financial advisors as we have stated many times to come in with the two plans and the two proposals. Obviously a key element is the amount of revenue that the hotel would generate. One of the largest elements missing in that is whether or not the TIF legislation would be successful. So, we do have Solomon, Smith, Barney; Citi Group, and the other financial advisors working on that, but we’ve got to have all the information in front of us. We’ll provide a scenario with and without the TIF at least to bring you up to speed at that point, but nothing’s changed from the other information that we’ve given you.

Councilman Gibson: If I could be more specific, regarding you had mentioned yesterday, that a couple of weeks ago, that we were aware that the financial gap had grown from $8,000,000 to $20,000,000 and you said that there were some factors that went along with it in terms of the Bond market and things of that nature. That’s what I was really looking for, is a, specifically something in writing that could tell us what those factors were, that the number has grown. That’s what I’m alluding to. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Mr. Gibson. And along those lines, Mr. Antee, I had taken a look back over the minutes of the financial presentation that we received and what I did find was that we were assured that we would be looking at $40,000,000 in bonds that would be sold?

Mr. Antee: Correct.

Councilman Carmody: Plus I assume the $12,000,000 in capital outlay, that would be the $52,000,000 which I guess was explained to us would be the cost to construct the project. I guess my question was then if the City was going to have a gap funding now of $20,000,000 where is that money earmarked to go to?

Mr. Antee: That’s what we’ve tried to explain on numerous occasions. The total cost of the project is estimated now to be $52,000,000. Well there’s two ways to finance it, well there are many ways to finance it. The original plan that we had presented showed the revenue bond as the Class A that the City would not have to guarantee. They’d only be guaranteed by the revenues generated by the Hotel and the Hotel property itself. Then there is the $12,000,000 from the State. Between whatever the revenue bonds could be sold and the $12,000,000 gap or the $12,000,000 from the State was the gap, prior to 9-11, it was estimated that, that gap would be less than $8,000,000. Since 9-11, the hotel market has changed, the bond market has changed, a lot of things have changed. So, the bond market is not loaning as much money on revenues that are not guaranteed by something other than just the revenues of the hotel. They’re also increasing the amount of debt coverage by almost double and they’re requiring a lot more to be put into a debt service reserve, so you’ve got more money going into a bank account in case it can’t pay it’s debt rather than tooth picks and mortar. It was based on those circumstances that the financial advisors said there’s a better way of doing it. Which would cost a whole lot less money, have a lower interest rate, but it would require the City to ‘backstop’ (is their term) or guarantee the entire $40,000,000 in bonds. So that’s why we said we’re going to bring to the Council two different proposals and let the Council decide which one is the best way to go. We will have our opinion and we’ll have a recommendation. But we’ve said all the long we’ll bring that back to the Council to decide. By guaranteeing the entire debt of $40,000,000 rather than just the gap, that its just currently estimated around $20,000,000, it could be that while the City’s total guarantee is more the risk that they would ever have to pay because of the cash flow is less by having more money to go towards debt service. So that’s a brief explanation. We can get you something more in detail in writing and we’ll be glad to, but until – we won’t bring a final proposal until we know exactly what we’re dealing with before the Council can make a selection.

Councilman Carmody: Alright, in reviewing the minutes, though the question was asked as to what the total amount of bonds that the City would be guaranteeing and I believe was $40,000,000. Is this now – is it reduced to $20,000,000 or is it $20(m) plus the $40(m)?

Mr. Antee: No. We’ve got two options. We can guarantee the whole $40,000,000. That’s gonna be one proposal or we can guarantee whatever that gap is which could be approximately $20,000,000. Now, when you think well, why wouldn’t we guarantee the lower amount? What we have to look at from a financial standpoint is what is the hotel’s ability to pay the debt? If you’ve got more money under guaranteeing the $20,000,000 if you have more money going to pay interest rather than principal, it could be that you got less cash flow to satisfy those bonds so the City may be called upon to pay it quicker than if they guaranteed the whole thing and you had a lot more money going towards interest and principal, and you’ve got a lower interest amount and a higher principal amount being paid, so the likelihood of the taxpayers ever having to pay because the hotel couldn’t meet it’s payments is a lot smaller because the cost of financing by guaranteeing the whole amount is a whole lot less than the cost of financing just the $20,000,000 gap.

Councilman Carmody: Then would it be correct to say that the $20,000,000 funding that we’ve now been apprised of that we might be required to provide would be drawn from the Riverfront Development Fund or pledging that amount is made out of that – ? Again, I hate to get off into semantics, but I know that we’re trying to understand how the financing goes.

Mr. Antee: It would be pledged by the full faith and credit of the City. It could be the Riverfront Fund, it could be the General Fund, but it would be the full faith and credit of the City and not dedicate any fund – not a dedication of any funds, unless the Council so chose to do that.

Councilman Carmody: Alright sir, I’ll look forward to receiving the information and I would ask that all the Council Members also get that --

Mr. Antee: And keep in mind that the information that we will provide to you with the two proposed scenarios are not finalized. It’s an ongoing process based both on the budget and on the revenues. And like I said, the biggest issue on the revenue is the TIF legislation. So and that’s why, we’re pushing for the TIF legislation, because that’s approximately $1,000,000 a year that could come in to go to paying the deb and would reduce the likelihood of the taxpayers ever having to make good on any of the bonds because the hotel revenues and the TIF revenues would more than be enough to be sufficient to pay the debt. And that’s the only time the taxpayers would have to look at paying anything, is if the hotel could not generate enough income to pay the debt.

Councilman Carmody: And so then the $20,000,000 they were talking about was the maximum that the City would be looking to guarantee in one scenario. It could possibly be lower than that, but we’re not looking for a change in that figure for the gap funding to increase any more than $20,000,000?

Mr. Antee: Well, we don’t know. And we won’t know until the bond market, until it goes to the bond market. Now, Citi group and Solomon Smith can give us their best guess as to how much in bonds you could sell based on the revenues that the hotel could generate.

Mayor Hightower: Councilman, overall though the theory being that the recommendation that I think will ultimately be made by the financial advisors is that we backstop guarantee the whole amount.

Councilman Carmody: $52,000,000?

Mr. Antee: $40,000,000.

Mayor Hightower: $40,000,000 minus the $12(million) from the state, to guarantee backstop the whole $40(million). If we backstop the whole $40(million), our interest rate will be lower as a result of that, rather than just backstopping the other. The other thing that happens, when Ken’s talking about going out and selling bonds in bond market, we’re likely to sell more bonds if we’re backstopping the whole thing because bond holders in general feel more comfortable with the whole project knowing that the City’s full faith and credit is behind it. Instead of saying that okay, we’re just going to sell as many bonds as we can and then City is going to step in and fill the gap, because we’re not going to back up the bond holders at that point, they’re still hung out there by themselves. So, instead of us selling $15,000,000 worth of bonds on the revenue bond market, we may only sell $10 (million) because there may be tentative buyers out there that say "oh, if the City is not going to back me in my bond purchase, I’m not buying". But knowing that the City will backstop the entire $40(million), I think you’re more likely to have more bond purchasers out there step up to the plate and buy the bonds which helps us in the long run it shrinks that gap. So that’s the reason that we’re talking about two different scenarios and the reason that we think in the end, it’s probably going to make more sense for us to backstop the entire project with the exception the $12,000,000 the State’s putting up.

Mr. Antee: Plus, when the City backstop, your bond rating is much better which all adds to the interest. The best way to explain it is in the first scenario. I think and don’t hold me to these numbers, but I think the debt service on an annual basis is a little over $3,000,000. If the City backstopped the whole thing the debt service is $2,2000,000. And so, you can see it’s a lot easier for the City to guarantee $40,000,000 and have an annual debt service payment of $2,200,000 and only guaranteeing $20,000,000 but the hotel happens to meet a $3,000,000 or $800,000 or more debt service. So, that’s why we think when they come back, it’s going to make more sense. That’s why we’re pushing for the TIF, because with an annual debt payment of $2,200,000 and you can get a million dollars by keeping money from going to Baton Rouge in the Convention and Tourism Bureau, then that’s almost half your payment right there, that would be going to Baton Rouge otherwise or to the Convention and Tourism Bureau.

Councilman Carmody: In that scenario, then it would limit the exposure to the General Fund or to whatever resources we add to $1,200,000 a year. Correct?

Mr. Antee: Correct. Now that’s if the hotel had zero revenues over operating expenses. But the projection would be if they were generating a million dollars, then it would be generating a lot more in revenue over the expenses that could go to debt service.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Antee or Mr. Mayor, you may either one address this question, but the way I appreciate this and what Mr. Carmody had said a moment ago about the possibility of the gap being as low as $8,000,000. I had even considered that, that amount we could either put it before the people for a vote and this other scenario that you’ve talked about where there is going to be possibly $40,000,000 that we’re going to back, there would be no question in my mind that I would be in support of putting it before the vote of the people. If we go with this second scenario where we’re going to have $40,000,000, so that’s just a comment there also Mr. Chair. I don’t know, I would encourage the council to support this, if it comes to that. Because I think it would be imperative that we put it before the people for a vote, if we’re talking about a $40,000,000 commitment. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments. To piggyback on what’s being said, I think we have to be very careful before it’s a referendum on ourselves that we have with regards to making decisions. And I support the idea of referendums to me as last resorts, because I think obviously, without those things that are by Charter that have to go to referendum, very often, we have to be careful. The second thing Mr. Antee, I’ve got a copy, I guess this came from your office and the folks from SMG, and HRI. They sent us some information and I appreciate, but I think they may have misinterpreted what I was asking for. SMG sent me employment, diversity, employed and I was interested in contracts. Sub-contractors or those folks who they did business with and those particular arenas. They gave me employee numbers and I really wasn’t concerned so much about employee numbers, because I think employee numbers by and large are different by the demographics of wherever you are. So, their numbers from New Orleans will obviously reflect for the most part the demographics from New Orleans and the same thing for other City’s that may have a different demography. So, my concern was less about the employment piece, but more about who they did business with. And so --

Mr. Antee: Now is that in Bossier and New Orleans or company wide because they’re a world wide company.

Councilman Jackson: Right, because when they were here the last time, I suggested to them that as you may remember, that the best indication of what people will do in the future is what they’ve done in the past. And I wanted to look at the track record of folks who we’re going to be doing business with, to see what we could expect. So I wanted the Bossier number, since they’re at least close. And then I’d asked them for comparable markets. New Orleans may not be comparable, but other places where there are facilities can be considered comparable. And I just mean in general size, not in the demographics, but just in general size- - -in market size. And secondly, HRI, they gave the information on – I’d asked about the projects they did on Lee Hardware and United Jewelers or what have you. And I just wanted to be sure this was the list. It had local and minority participation and in the Downtown Apartment Projects and I’m assuming they’re certifying that this is their information.

Mr. Antee: That just came in today and I haven’t had a chance to look at it, but in speaking to Mr. Boettner, it’s my understanding that, that was for those two projects.

Councilman Jackson: I just didn’t know if we just had one page and this was just the local part and he just didn’t send the minority part or this was the whole list.

Mr. Antee: I don’t know. We’ll check into that.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Councilman Jackson hit exactly where I was going with this. Because I was very interested in the information as well. What we asked for was subcontracting opportunities, subcontracting and minority and local participation at their facilities, not just at their companies. And we asked for information about the company, SMG itself, not just at their facilities that they manage. We want to know something about SMG as a company in terms of how diverse they are. And I think, in fact I know we asked that same question of HRI and as I read, what we’ve been given, that’s not it. They’ve just given us some employment data and that’s not sufficient. And as it relates to HRI, I appreciate what they submitted, but it does not break out what’s minority and what’s not. What’s local and what’s not. I recognize some of these names as people in terms of some of the minority contractors that do business with some of our City projects, but it’s not broken out an spelled out specifically. And so, I know I would ask that they would give us this information with some specificity at the next meeting.

Mr. Antee: And that’s fine. And if I could, after a six hour meeting, I don’t think any of us were real clear as to everything that was being requested, because we were in the middle of a presentation and not necessarily taking notes. So, if I could request that we could get something in writing what you specifically want and I could forward that on to them and I’m sure they would be glad –

Councilman Lester: I’ll send you an email in the morning.

Councilman Carmody: One last question. I know that at yesterday’s work session Mr. Antee, I’d inquired about the opinion from Jerry Jones’, Facility Director. Have we received any correspondence back from his office?

Mr. Antee: I haven’t received anything today and I haven’t sent a follow up letter, because it’s my understanding that you’ve sent one?

Councilman Carmody: No sir, I didn’t send one to Mr. Jones. I’ve actually contacted I believe it’s Jerry Luke LeBlanc.

Mr. Antee: Okay. We have no problem with you since the request came from you communicating directly with Facility and Planning in making such request.

Councilman Carmody: Well, I’m hoping to hear back from Mr. LeBlanc, but I guess I was actually looking forward to a response back to your attention from Mr. Jones.

Mr. Antee: Well, we’re looking for it too and we haven’t received it. As soon as we receive it, we’ll forward it.

Mayor Hightower: Could I follow up on one of the concerns I guess that Mr. Hogan had a second ago. And it was in reference to a referendum on this hotel project. My concern all the long with the legislation in Baton Rouge was that we are on a level playing field with the rest of the State. Not half way pregnant, either we’re on a level playing field or we are not. And that’s been my concern in that Shreveport and Caddo Parish were singled out in the legislature to have to go through Baton Rouge to be able to get a TIF done. The other thing that I don’t think puts us on a level playing field is going to a referendum. New Orleans didn’t do it, Baton Rouge didn’t have to do it, Lake Charles hasn’t had to do it. Alexandria hasn’t had to do it and for us to have to do it, I think puts us at a disadvantage on a particular project at least in one way from a timing standpoint in that the interest rates, if you’ve been watching CNN, Greenspan has been talking about interest rates going up. We obviously couldn’t go to an election before late fall at best, which if the interest rates move up, proportionately, we’re still going to be better off than the private sector. But if the interest rates move up, more of our revenue goes to debt service or interest payments instead of debt service. So, I think it puts us at a disadvantage to do that. The second reason that I’m not big on the referendum is that whose going to pay for it. The City can’t raise the money, we can’t take money out of the general fund to run a campaign to support the effort. That would have to be raised privately. Which I guess would be up to this Council and myself to do. Not that we can’t do it, we’ve done it before. But it’s easy for someone to sit and say we’ve got to go to a vote and sit back and think someone else will take care of it. The other thing, I guess that concerns me about going to the vote is everyone of us here are elected, just like our legislators in Baton Rouge. And our constituents elect us to go out and represent them, to study the issues, to get the ins and outs, to ask the questions, to get the answers, to feel comfortable or not feel comfortable and vote up or down, one way or the other. That’s the job, each and everyone of us, at least eight of us up here took and asked for. And we agreed that we would study the issues and represent our constituents to the best of our ability. We don’t call them down here every other Tuesday or we don’t call them to Baton Rouge three months out of the year to listen to the issues and vote. That’s what we’re elected to do. I know that this is a big project, but you guys voted on a big project last December. You voted on $700,000,000 worth of what are we going to do with our citizens money. And we didn’t have to call a public referendum for anyone to make those decisions. Each and everyone of you took time, we all went through the budget together, we came to a consensus on what was best for our constituents individually and collectively as a city. And I think we came out with a budget that we could all live with. Are we going to amend it from time to time? We may amend it today. And you have to do that from time to time. You have to be flexible and make changes as changes need to be made. But again, I think that we’re all elected to make prudent decisions. We sat here in an Council Meeting a couple of weeks ago for four hours going through the presentation. Councilman Carmody and I and Councilman Gibson came to the Broadmoor Neighborhood Association. We did a presentation that lasted roughly an hour, I believe Councilmen, to explain how the program worked. And we’ve talked today for probably 30 minutes on how the program works. I think it is a tough campaign to run when you have hour long explanation sessions that you have to turn into 30 second sound bites and T.V. commercials. I think it’s a pretty tough thing to do, to give the citizens the comfort they need to feel like they are making an intelligent decision. We can put on forums and we can educate as much as we want and we will certainly do that and we would have to do that. But you guys along with the legislators have had the benefit, I think at least of sitting in the meeting and listening to the pros and cons and asking the questions and going through all you feel like you need to go through to get the information that you need. So, can we do a referendum and can it pass? I think it can pass. I definitely think it can. I think it’s long hard and tough, but to get back to a level playing field, why should the citizens of Shreveport and Caddo Parish have to jump through hoops and beg for things that the rest of the State can just do? I certainly know that we’ve got the wear with all on this Council and the willingness to ask the question and learn and study the issues to make the right decisions. If that decision happens to be no, we don’t want to build a hotel. I’ll certainly live with that process. But again, I think that the playing field should be level and we shouldn’t have Baton Rouge telling us that you guys can or can’t make that decision.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Mayor I appreciate where you’re coming from and your thoughts on the project and annually, we do budget the available revenues of the City in order to address the needs of the community. I guess my concern is along the lines of other Councilmen in that if we’re now looking to in debt the City to another $40,000,000 that, that does constitute what would appear to be the second largest capital project the City has ever undertaken. Half of that amount. It represents approximately half of the amount that was actually required to get a public referendum in order to do what is under construction now in the Convention Center. And so, I appreciate where you’re coming from, because you’re talking specifically about the TIF. I guess what we’re talking about in total, we’re talking about $40,000,000, the City standing behind, backstop whatever that value is, I think that is the concern of a lot of constituents that have spoken to me about the Council and the Mayor moving forward to do the project without some, at least consideration by the public. So, I appreciate where you’re coming from.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think we keep mudding the water and we’re talking apples to oranges and a lot of different kind of fruit in one conversation, because on one hand in one week we talk about a referendum and we talk about the people in Baton Rouge, if I appreciate this correctly, the referendum that those folks who are in Baton Rouge, who are legislators, who I might add don’t go to a referendum when they decide to cut $700,000,000 from a budget or when they decide to vote on raising taxes, whether we keep a permanent or a temporary tax, they don’t send that back out to the voters. They do the difficult job of having to make that decision that they make politically and otherwise. It’s not easy. The easiest thing to do is always throw it back on somebody else. We complain about very often the MPC and the ZBA always having to come back to us, appeal, appeal, appeal. And we say, why don’t they do their jobs. And very often, particularly lately, I’m concerned we seem to be doing the same thing. Notwithstanding the quantity of the money, It seems that we talked about a TIF district in Baton Rouge. Shreveport is being treated differently and some people are seemingly satisfied with that. It subverts the authority of the local governing body in my opinion, to have to cow down to the legislature when other cities don’t have to do it. And we sit idly by and act like it’s okay. The problem is it sets a dangerous precedent for how you govern both locally and in Baton Rouge and I think to be supportive of that, in my opinion, is a slippery slope toward forgetting the fact that all politics are local and the people who make the best decisions are the people who live and are elected in this city and I think that’s important for us to keep in mind. But secondly, back to the apples and oranges, it seems to me we’re talking about a TIF district. Going out on referendum as a part of their amended legislation, one of the proposed amendments was that it would necessitate a referendum. Now that referendum was on a TIF district that deals with a million dollars worth of a revenue, you know all the specifics of. Has nothing to do with $40,000,000. Now if we add the whole hotel project, the referendum is not on the hotel project. The referendum that we’ve been speaking of particularly coming from Baton Rouge is a referendum on a TIF district and establishing a TIF district. Now, when we start talking about a referendum on the hotel, we just got referendums and referendums and referendums and I think whatever month we decide to do the referendum, perhaps we ought to take the month off. Because if the citizens are going to do the work that they elected us to do, and I think this is just one of those times, when it’s difficult. I mean, we vote from week to week to refinance $19,000,000 worth of GOB bonds and we say $34,000,000 is to refinancing that we refinance. Why? For the benefit of the interest rates to save the City some money for the most part. And I think those decisions are prudent decisions and very often, we don’t even talk about ‘em. We just – we got a motion and a second, and we vote. $34,000,000. $19,000,000, motion and second and we vote. And I just think now all of a sudden for us to begin to get cold feet, I think it’s legitimate. I think it does – nobody’s wrong and I’m not questioning the motives of those who say we might need a referendum. But I’m suggesting to us that we need to be consistent in the way we’re going to govern because we’re going to look very hypocritical if we sit by and we pass $700,000,000 a year in both capital and operating budgets and we never ask people about it and Councilman Gibson was reminding me earlier that we do have public hearings on it, but the Council Meeting is a public hearing. Every week, people have the opportunity to come out and to know what’s going on and it’s even televised unlike many of the budget meetings and so, I just want us to – I’m not trying to sway anybody, not trying to ask anybody for any particular support, but I am trying to say that we are an elected body who have as individuals and who has as a collective body responsibilities. They’re fiduciary, they’re financial. There are a lot of different kinds of responsibility. And I get nervous when I feel like we’re shirking those responsibilities at the behest of other people, whatever the case may be. I just want this Council to be careful of how we set what I believe can be a dangerous precedent, and to some it may be a prudent precedent, to always go out to the voters when there is a certain number of dollars and the size of the capital project, but the City is going to continue to grow and 20 years from now, they’re going to, I hope, will be doing bigger projects and doing more money, but I hope the voters are still considered this a legitimate form of government, so that they won’t have to come down to every meeting and make decisions and vote every year on small things that we as a Council have some responsibility to do. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Green: Thank you Mr. Chair and again, I talked to this and I said I was not going to talk today, but since the referendum and all was brought up, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to say again as I said yesterday. It’s not about the TIF district. It’s not about none of that. Somebody else want to build this hotel. I look at it as a personal indictment against you and basically when it comes down to the bottom line, if you don’t build a hotel while you’re mayor, the next person that’s over there is going to be talking about we need to build a hotel. Whether it’s somebody up here or whether it’s somebody somewhere else. That’s when the hotel and all of this stuff is going to make sense. That’s what this is all about. Phone calls are being made to Baton Rouge to say, let’s hold off and lets don’t do – We’ve had a whole consultant that we paid. I don’t even know how much we paid them. We’ll probably pay somebody else, once somebody else gets in that chair. Hold off and lets don’t do it, and we’re just going to play tic tac toe until it gets to another point, but I don’t want you to think and I don’t want the citizens to think that we’re just so afraid of this TIF district, its just a matter of TIF is whether the money stays here or whether it goes to Baton Rouge and come back here. It doesn’t take rocket scientists to do that. Whether we want a hotel with our convention center or not. I think we ought to be men enough up here to say I’m for the hotel, whatever it takes, lets just build a hotel. I’m against the hotel, we don’t want one. And lets move to the next page versus going around in circles. And like I said on yesterday, and I’ll say it again today. I don’t care if it’s a TIF district, I don’t care if it’s Tiffany’s district. When the hotel is being built, what I want to know is how much money Black folk are going to make. That’s what I want to know. The rest of ‘em up here want to know how much money White folk are going to make. As I said yesterday, White folk always make - - - we already know they’re in the line to make the money. I want to make sure that folk like me get more than potato chips. Now, that’s what I’m concerned about. I don’t care if it’s Tiffany, I don’t care if it’s a Betty district. As long as we can make some money, then everybody is happy. That’s what makes America. I mean, romance without finance ain’t no fun. We can do all this talking, but it all boils down to whose going to make the money and that’s where we are. So, dress it up the way we want to, we just need to call a space a space, an ace an ace or whatever and lets just go on and do business and stop playing games with the citizens. Because we got some folk behind the scene that want to make all the money. And so, therefore, if in fact, they can figure out a way to make it look nice and to convince you all that they are really for you and whatever, then they’ll do that. I’m not for that. I’ve said yesterday and I hate to be repetitive, but other than Councilman Walford, I’m about the oldest up here and my nerves are short. And I don’t know how to deal with stuff that don’t make sense. I mean I’m just cut and dry. It’s either we’re going to do it or we’re not going to do it and lets just stop playing games. The hotel, if we want it, let’s just do it. Let’s just make sure that the pie is split up fair and we just make some money and go. Because in a minute, Bossier is going to figure out how can they get a hotel beside their convention. They’re not going to have but one meeting to say ‘lets do it’, and it’s going to be done. We could have had a convention center years ago before they did, but we gotta go through the politics and whose cousin say it’s okay and I just think that it’s time out for that. We need to just go on and deal – my constituents want to know how much money Buddy Boy gone make or whoever, or June Bug or somebody. That’s what they want to know. They don’t care about all the rest of that stuff. They want to know if we’re going to make some money. As I said yesterday, Theron Jackson, Calvin Lester, James Green are wondering how much money Black folk gonna make. The rest of y’all already know that White folk going to make some money. That’s just cut and dry. That’s just America. That’s why we had to come up with this Fair Share to make sure that minorities are getting their fair share. Minorities used to be just Black folk. But I was at a meeting last week before last where there was a Chinese guy saying ‘listen, I’m glad you Black folk got out there and fought, I’m standing on your shoulder, because if it hadn’t been for y’all, I wouldn’t be the manager of a hotel’. And my question was where were you when we were doing all that marching? But anyway, that’s another story. But we’re the ones that get left out, so I want to make sure that whatever we’re build, if we build a chicken coop, then I want to make sure that we’re in on making some money. And that’s what everybody in here, everybody in here want to make some money. If you don’t want to make some, it’s something wrong with you because how much money is enough. A little bit more. So, therefore that’s where we are and that’s what this deal is all about. And again Mr. Mayor, it’s not about the TIF district, the Tiffany district, it’s about you. They didn’t get you on the audit, they didn’t get you on the other stuff, so they want to get you on something to be able to go home or go to the bar or go to the golf course and say ‘we got ‘em’. That’s just plain as day. So, I apologize for them. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: I’d like to recognize Ms. Ursula Hardy with the Caddo Parish School Board Member, Ms. Hardy, you’re in our audience today, where are you? There you are Ma’am. Glad to have you with us.

Ms. Hardy: Thank you.

Councilman Walford: I’m not about to try to top any of that, I question one thing that my colleague said. Without the TIF, the money goes to Baton Rouge, it comes back. My experience is the Baton Rouge and it gets lost somewhere down south of I-10 and doesn’t make it back.

Councilman Green: Also Ms. Hardy was my teacher in school, that’s why I have the education that I have.

Mayor Hightower: I’d like to make one final comment if you don’t mind and I want to get back to the project itself. And as you know we’ve taken this before several bodies and explained it to other bodies besides the Council which was a 6-1 vote. The Tourist Bureau voted in favor of the TIF legislation, 12-4, Chamber of Commerce voted in favor of the legislation 20-1. The DDA, 5-0 and as late as last night at the Broadmoor Neighborhood Association, 16-0 against. I man for. I’m sorry.

Councilman Carmody: There was 10. There were 26 people there, 16 voted for the resolution –

Mayor Hightower: And the others did not vote at all. No one voted against it.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, I’m sorry. Didn’t mean to interrupt you sir.

Mayor Hightower: Okay. And going back to what Mr. Hogan had said a little bit before and what Councilman Jackson was alluding to and others have alluded to when it comes to the referendum, and first of all, I hope the legislature puts us back on a level playing field so that this body has the opportunity to stand up and make a decision. I know that I have the guts to do it and I suspect that most of this City Council has the guts to do the same thing that George Dement and the Bossier City, City Council have done when they decided to go and build the Centurytel Center. They didn’t go to a vote of the people to do that. They had the guts to stand up and do what they were elected to do. When they decided to build a $35,000,000 infrastructure and parking garage for Riverwalk, they didn’t go to a referendum of the people, they had the guts to stand up and do what they were elected to do and I think that will prove as successful as the Centurytel in time. If we continue to do business the way that some apparently think that we ought to do business, we’ll surely be the 4^th or 5^th largest city in this State. We can’t continue to sit back on our hand, hide behind lets let the voters decide or whatever other excuses we come up with, we gotta do our jobs and we got seven guys sitting up here along with my self that all came into the office, I think pretty much on the same pretense. We’re going to rock and roll. We’re going to grow this community, we’re going to change the face of this community. We’re going to set up a community to where all of us can prosper, where our kids can stay here, where you can live, work, play- - -a place you can be proud of. And I don’t think we need to lose focus of that. Do we need to be prudent? I think Councilman Jackson is exactly right. We need to study the issues, we need to realize where we are. We need to ask the questions that Councilman Gibson talks about. And I welcome every bit of that. I don’t want anyone on this issue to feel like they’re walking out on shaky ground or quick sand or anything else. I want you to feel like, just like I said when we had all the experts in town, we want you to ask the questions. We’ll get you the answers to make you fell like, you’re making an informed decision if the legislature gives you that opportunity to the constituents that you represent, but again, it’s easy to hide behind let’s go to a vote of the people. And I’m not afraid of a vote of the people. Again, I believe we could win a vote of the people, but at the same time, we’ve got to consider the timing and we’ve got to do what our neighbors across the street have done. Let’s give ‘em credit. They step up to the plate. They make a decision, they go do it and have been successful at doing that. So again, I hope you guys get the opportunity to do that. But the only way to do it is for us to come out of Baton Rouge hopefully with either our TIF legislation being successful or HB1660 being successful without amendments.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to do something, but we got into this report before when we left recognition of distinguished guest. Is it okay if I –

Councilman Carmody: Yes.

Councilman Jackson: I wanted to, I didn’t know if it had been said before I got here, but last week, I was at lunch and one of my friends was telling me about something I had to go back on the internet to find out. He said you know we were on the National News again. And I said, on the National News? He said yeah. I said what happened this time? He said well it was a guy or some police, some prisoner or something broke away or started running away from the Court house or something. Some guy from a news station chased him down and caught him until the police could come or whatever it was. And just the week before, somebody had chased a bank robber through the neighborhood and I wanted to ask Chief Campbell if they were having auditions for the Police Department or something, tryouts or something. But everybody was getting involved. But Fred Childers is here. I just wanted, I know he’s working today, and so, I’m not trying to give him any undue recognition, because he’s still on the other side. But, from Channel 12, Fred Childers and I just wanted to just say thank you to folks like that who get involved and even at the risk very often, because you never know what you’re dealing with, at the risk of sometimes your own life, the fact that he would be selfless enough to do that. It took a lot of courage and I heard the Mayor talking about guts, you know it took a lot of guts and a lot of courage to get involved, especially when you’re on the clock and could look the other way. So, I just want to recognize- - - and want to ask him if he’d stand and recognize him.

Property Standards Program:

Councilman Carmody: Thank you sir. Are there any questions for the Council Members regarding our Property Standards Report that we received yesterday? Hearing none, then that brings us down to Item 6. Public Hearing.

Public Hearing: None.

Confirmations and/or Appointments, Adding Legislation to the Agenda and Public Comments:

Confirmation and/or Appointments: GIS Administrator for DOS - Mr. Shannon Norgaard

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

Adding Legislation to the Agenda:

Councilman Carmody: Madam Clerk, I want to make sure I think that I have this correct. We have already taken care of I believe Items 2 and 6.

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct.

Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Walford to add the following to the agenda:

1. Resolution No. 131 of 2004: By Councilman Jackson: A Resolution to request an opinion from the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

1. Resolution No. 132 of 2004: By Councilman Lester: A Resolution creating the Convention Center Complex Local and Minority Participation Committee to monitor the construction and operation of the Shreveport Convention Center Project and the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel Project and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

1. Resolution No. 133 of 2004: By Councilman Calvin Lester: A Resolution suspending the effects of certain provisions of Chapter 10 relative to alcoholic beverages on June 11, 12, and 13, 2004 relative to dispensing, sale and/or consumption of low alcoholic content beverages at 2010 North Market and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

1. Ordinance No. 76 of 2004: TWENTY SECOND 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 not to exceed $13,000,000 principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2004 Refunding Series B, 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.

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

Public Comment (Agenda Items to be Adopted):

Mr. Coke (442 Kenny Road): The appeal was filed on the Brushy Bayou Project for the modular homes that’s gonna be placed in this project. And we’ve had some meetings and discussion with the developer and Mr. Gibson about this project. We’ve tried to convince them that we do not want modular homes and we still have not been convinced that these homes are gonna raise the value of our property, we feel like it’s going to depreciate the value. These homes are manufactured homes brought in, in pieces put together on slabs from what we understand. The value of these homes we’ve been told do not hold as well or appreciate like stick built homes do. We have tried to get them to put stick built homes in to keep the property at the same value it’s at now, if not increase it. This is gonna be considered low income housing. It’s gonna be no money down financing with I think it’s gonna require a person, if you make $36,000 a year, you’ll qualify for one of these loans. That is the main reason we’re trying to stop this project from taking place. If its stick built homes, that would equal or increase the value of what we have there now, we wouldn’t have a lot of problems there. It’s not the fact that we’re trying to stop a subdivision, we’re just trying to stop the type of subdivision that’s being brought to us.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Coke, did I appreciate you to say that if it was the same development, but the houses were stick built, but everything else stayed the same, you would still have a problem with it?

Mr. Coke: I would not have a problem with it.

Councilman Jackson: So, if it was still, if you make $36,000, you could live there and that whole thing you described as long as it was stick built, that still would be okay?

Mr. Coke: I’m not sure about this. A stick built home requires a different type of financing. You have to qualify through an FHA, VHA, or VA Loan, and I don’t know if a person making $36,000 a year would qualify for a loan of a house that’s in the neighborhood of $100-150,000.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, in an effort, and perhaps you know nationally one of the major initiatives that’s talked about by President Bush and certainly that’s being, I think, pushed by folks who are concerned about all Americans is quality affordable housing. Where it’s not the quality of the house that’s the issue, but it’s the type of financing and the creative nature in which you do finance it. So, it’s very possible that $100,000 house could in fact be afforded and one of the goals of I know this President, and those Presidents passed, most recently was that all Americans, even those- - - cause that $36,000 a year job, teachers don’t make that much. But my hopes is that those teachers who teach my kids could afford a nice house and that’s one of the major problems that we’ve had in this country is that teachers can’t afford to live where other people can live, but they teach their children. And so, again, I’m not trying to say anything other than the fact that I was trying to find out what the opposition was. Was it the modular type home? Or, was it the level of income, that you wanted to keep at a certain level, or make sure that, that matched? Because it would seem to me that one of the things that’s happening around the country is that you’re taking quality houses, but you’re making them affordable for folks who otherwise would never be able to own a house in as nice a neighborhood as they are talking about now as I appreciate it. Because I really have not seen the spot where the homes would be. I was just trying to gauge whether or not as a citizen who represents that area, if the type of houses were different, it would be okay for the same, I guess description of the persons who would live there to live there. You just have a problem with the type of home?

Mr. Coke: Exactly.

Councilman Jackson: Or is it the type of clientele?

Mr. Coke: No, the homes themselves.

Councilman Jackson: Okay.

Mr. Coke: Most people that I’ve talked to that knows anything about modular homes, when you speak of modular homes, their first reaction is trailer house. A type of trailer house. And this is not something that- - - when I asked them, that’s the opinion they give me.

Councilman Jackson: But you know better than that.

Mr. Coke: It’s not a trailer house, I know that it’s made by some of the same companies that build trailer houses. I know they are put together differently, but yet, in ways they are similar. They’re not a wall bolted to a concrete slab like a stick built home. It is a slab poured and you have a joist, a floor joist that sits on the slab with the floor on top of it. So, it’s not connected to a slab like a stick built home.

Councilman Jackson: Interestingly enough, I think you’ve said to me earlier, and I’m not as aware as obviously as you would be, because you live there. They’re talking about $100,000 - 150,000 houses? There’s got to be a lot of modular house to be worth. Because if you’re talking about a value, if it’s still $150(thousand) whether it’s stick built or modular, $150,000 at the bank is a $150,000 it would seem to me, I’m saying. And so, obviously, they can’t be putting not no, I’ve got an idea what trailers cost, and it’s not $150,000. So, I was thinking that- - -

Mr. Coke: (unclear) what these houses cost per square foot? I’ve heard the number $80 is what is gonna cost them. I don’t know if that includes the lot, I don’t know if that includes - - - there are some additions that go to these houses once they are put up. They come in from what I understand, just the main portion of the house, if it’s gonna have a garage, that’s added on site. The porch is added on site. These things, I don’t know if that all comes into play.

Councilman Jackson: Well, I don’t know, I think Councilman Gibson may know but, there is a time on the agenda obviously when we are going to have that discussion. But I just wanted to ask you that question, since you were making those comments. But I appreciate it.

Councilman Green: Mr. Coke, this is a picture of one of the houses. Can you tell just by looking at it whether it’s stick or whether it’s any other way?

Mr. Coke: I can’t from here.

Councilman Green: Over there where you live are there any houses with similar looking to this particular house?

Mr. Coke: There is a two story house over there with dormers on it. (Unclear)

Councilman Green: Once a family moves into this house, will you be able to tell how it was built?

Mr. Coke, these houses around the bottom of them, they have an appearance like there is an enclosure.

Councilman Green: So, your deal is to protect the folk that’s moving in them more than anything else or is it the folks that will be moving in them that you are worried about?

Mr. Coke: No, what I’m worried about is those homes not appreciating in value, bringing the value of my house down.

Councilman Green: And so, how far will your house be from these?

Mr. Coke: Across the street.

Councilman Green: So, they’d be right across the street from yours. Is your house similar to this one?

Mr. Coke: It doesn’t have dormers. But my house has a porch, I can’t tell what that is on the end, on the left hand side (unclear).

Councilman Green: I’ll bring it to you. Just point out the difference between that house and your house by just looking at the picture.

Mr. Coke: Well, this house has a gable roof. Mine has a (unclear) roof with a gable on the front of it over the garage.

Councilman Green: Show me about, you said around down at the bottom?

Mr. Coke: Right here, I’m not sure what that is, I don’t know if that’s something that’s added on, but this house is as you can see in the picture that it’s not- - - there is a black enclosure around the bottom. That is not concrete. That’s something that encloses the bottom of this house to cover up where is sets on the slab. That’s one of the differences.

Councilman Green: So, that’s the part. If they do something different with that, then you wouldn’t have a problem with it?

Mr. Coke: Well, if they do something different with that, you’re just about gonna have to bolt them to the slab and make a stick built home out of it.

Councilman Green: So, this house can slide off the slab? Is that what you’re saying?

Councilman Jackson: It seems to me that this house is bolted to the concrete.

Mr. Coke: It doesn’t have (unclear) plates bolted to concrete like in stick built homes.

Councilman Green: My question is are you afraid that this house is going to slide off the slab?

Mr. Coke: No, I’m afraid that this house is going to depreciate the value of my property and we have one acre lots on our properties. These properties are going to be set on lots as small as 7200 square feet.

Councilman Green: Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Coke, the first time we had a chance to visit on this project, if I recall to my notes, I see the MPC approved this on April 7^th, and you called me up I believe on April 14^th, I believe, via phone. Is that correct?

Mr. Coke: Yes.

Councilman Gibson: You at that point and time informed me or asked me if I knew of this development? And I said that I did not know about this development. Is that correct?

Mr. Coke: Um hm.

Councilman Gibson: Also, you informed me that this had been heard on April 7^th at the MPC meeting and a tall design professional had made the presentation. Is that correct?

Mr. Coke: I’m not sure if I told you that, but I do remember us talking about it.

Councilman Gibson: Well again, I recall it, so I just want to make - - - the reason why I’m getting to a point, because there was a letter sent to my colleagues and I think in that same conversation, in fact I don’t think, I know in that conversation, that I said because of the industry I represent, and the construction deals with a lot of engineers and architects, and I know just about every engineer and architect, in fact I will say, I know every one of ‘em. So, I made a phone call and I think the very next day, I called you back. We had another phone conversation and I said to you at that point and time, that the consulting engineer on this project, which it could have been anybody because there are several qualified professional engineers and consulting engineers in this community that specialize in streets and drainage and concrete foundations and things of that nature, but this particular consultant, a consulting engineer who still has a professional engineering license, started one of the largest engineering firms in this town years ago was my uncle. And did I not say that to you?

Mr. Coke: You did.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, the reason why I wanted to make that on the record is because I brought that information to you after I found out what this project was and 2) there was a letter that alluded to that, that somebody sent from the neighborhood. But at the same time, I was very concerned about conflict of interest. That was one of the first things that was brought to my attention when I ran for public office. In fact, several of my opponents in my race accused me of having a conflict of interest every forum we had. And I already gotten a written opinion about that because we don’t sign contracts up here. The Mayor signs those contracts with construction projects. But today at 10:00, I had been asking for an opinion from the Ethics Board. Gray Sexton, who is the Chairman and Executive Director of the Ethics Board stated that there was no conflict of interest in that. So, I wanted to set the record straight. That 1) I brought it to your attention up front, once I found out that you brought this project to my attention, because I did not know that this project existed. I had no idea who was involved in this project and this particular relative of mine which is an uncle is not an immediate family member is a professional engineer that could have been selected out of anybody that is responsible for doing the streets, the drainage, the sidewalks, the foundations, and the overall design as a Civil Engineer who is well respected. And in fact, if I had to bring which I probably bring the Executive Director of the MPC, Charles Kirkland to even expand on that, because of this person’s recommendation. But I do appreciate the exchange of information. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: I know that the raised dais gives the appearance that we up here can see everybody, but unfortunately this room is configured that there are blind spots in it. I do want to recognize Tammy Phelps and I believe that she’s sitting right - - -

Councilman Gibson: I think she’s over in the corner over there.

Councilman Carmody: Tammy, how are you? Glad to have you with us, a member of the Caddo Parish School Board. Thank you very much. Alright gentlemen, our second speaker requesting to speak is Dorothy Johnson.

Ms. Johnson (1704 North Luna, Chicago, IL): And I’m here to just say thank you to everyone in this great city for all that you all have did for us and did for him. And I live in Chicago, Illinois. And my presence here today is to say a special thanks to Mayor Hightower and this is my daughter.

Ms. Pitchford (Joliet, Illinois): Actually what the family wanted to say was we know that we are here today because you’re going to be voting on the resolution that will allow Lakeside Golf Course to be named after Jerry. And with the outpouring of affection that has been given to him, it helps us to understand why he loved this City the way he did and the people in it. And we just wanted to say we appreciate it.

Mr. Williams (2755 Circle Dr) Pertaining to the Lakeside Golf Course. Jerry Tim Brooks was a church member of mine. I’d be very proud to play on a golf course that’s called Jerry Tim Brooks. And just to let you know some of the good things that Jerry did, for my family. By being a member of our church, my youngest daughter came up to Lakeside Golf Course Junior Golf Clinic. She went on to play golf with Byrd High School, her junior and senior year, they went to State and came in second. One of her team members, Mary Duncan went on to be pro. My daughter got a golf scholarship. So, by being connected with golf, it made a better person out of her, it also made I guess a better person out of the family, because we also got involved in golf. But just to give a little highlights, just – Lakeside Golf Course is the only minority golf course in town. At one time, they were talking about closing it down. I will get into it later on down. But I’m very much in support of that golf course to name it Jerry Tim Brooks Golf Course. And the rest of my comments, I’ll bring in later.

Mr. Burns (4441 Long ) I’m here to talk about Jerry Tim Brooks and the reason I think it would be a great thing for Lakeside Golf Course to be named Jerry Tim Brooks Golf Course. For starters, he started me in the game. He loved the game of golf and all the things that happened at Lakeside, that was mostly for Black people, Jerry Tim Brooks had a hand in it. And all the people that are here know what I’m talking about. Jerry Tim Brooks was one great person, he had a thing with young Black people that wanted to play golf and I’m a living example. I caddy for Hal Sutton. That’s what I do for a living. And Jerry Tim Brooks started me on my way in the golfing field. And I’ll never forget it and if it could be named Jerry Tim Brooks more than happy and I’ll praise God. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kennedy (6375 Satinwood Place): I rise in favor of the ordinance to rename Lakeside Jerry Tim Brooks Golf Course. As Freddie Burns alluded to, when I was coming up in the early 60s, instead of going out and throwing rocks, we had a golf course to play on. And as you all know, if you say something bad or say anything about closing Lakeside, Jerry Tim Brooks was darkening that door and pounding on this podium to keep it open. So, I think it would be fantastic and it would be a powerful to the City if you name Lakeside Jerry Tim Brooks Golf Course. I would also like to say the youth, the young men and women that got scholarships from Southern to Grambling to everywhere else in the Country is there because of Jerry Tim Brooks. So, thank you Councilmen for considering. Thank you Mayor for considering to rename the golf course.

Pastor Brown (4616 Broadway): I came today, first of all I want to say to the Mayor, my daughter came back from University of New Orleans where she is on her way to medical school and we saw a frame coming up downtown. And she said daddy, what are they doing now? I said that’s the new convention center. Some years ago, she came here and it was just still a pile of dirt. And she said alright. She was sort of excited that something was going on down there. I want to say this that a lot of things are going on in this City and I just want to stand today, that when we talk about Lakeside, I was kind of a little afraid because you turned down naming Hilry Huckaby Street, (unclear) I figured you probably or some of the other people wouldn’t want to name this golf course after Jerry Tim. So, some people say well, this is a piece of cake, we’re going to do it. No, it wasn’t a piece of cake when we didn’t name (unclear) to name a street. But we named Grand Avenue and we changed it to Elvis Presley Boulevard because he came, and stood on the stage and he left. He was known to use drugs. And it bothers me when we even have to come up here and say anything to you all about naming that golf course after Jerry Tim Brooks. I think this is something that shouldn’t even have to even talk about. No one should have came here and said anything. Jerry Tim Brooks meant so much. He was instrumental for my brother getting a scholarship in golf. But it still bothers me and I’m still wanting that Shreveport Blanchard named after Hilry Huckaby, because I think Hilry did a lot for this City and some people may not like it. So, I think if we can change Grand Avenue to Elvis Presley Boulevard, when we know he died of a drug overdose. And I don’t like when we take away from those persons who did so much for this City. And going back to what the Mayor said, I applaud you Mayor, because I don’t think we voted for you guys to come here and we have somebody somewhere else making the decision. Mayor, I think you did a great job. I think that you ought to continue to do, and I don’t think we should be voting every time you turn around to make a decision. I think we need a hotel. We need something positive. And Bossier City is doing such good. We did the Black Rodeo when we put almost 10,000 people in that arena over there. And I think when we make decisions in this City, we ought to make those decisions positive for those that we care about. And I’m here, I’m not even asking you, cause I’m gonna tell you right now. If you don’t name it after him, I’m going to make me some signs and I’m going to put some signs up.

Mr. Antee: Mr. Chairman, and I commit to Rev. Brown that I wouldn’t ask them to move the camera.

Mr. Angell (9333 Linwood): I’m going to answer some of your question Mr. Theron that you had asked a few minutes ago, but I’m gonna quote Mr. Green real quick. I hope I wrote it down correctly. "Romance without Finance is no Fun".

Councilman Green: That’s what my grand-daddy said.

Mr. Angell: Oh, your grand-daddy said it. Well, same thing goes with business without making a profit is a dumb adventure. Alright? And what we’re talking about per se on this corner, we talk about these houses that are taking place. We’re talking about investment on a corridor. That’s what we’ve been talking about. And we talked about a piece of a puzzle. What we got before us today is one piece. There’s two more pieces getting ready to come to you next month and there will probably be about three more pieces coming to you the month after that. And what we’re talking about basically is investing in that corner. You see these folks have been here, they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have life care who is saying they have some concerns, but they could not be here today. Also, we are sitting across the street from this particular community and we have invested over the years about $20,000,000 in that community. Getting ready to invest another $5,000,000 right there on that corridor. And we have people who are building business down on that corridor between 3132 and Bert Kouns. And the reason why we’re coming here, because we’re asking for a clearer picture. Mr. Jackson, you said just a minute ago about the MPC, you’re doing some different things and this is a zoning hearing. And I know that Mr. Kirkland, me and Mr. Kirkland have been good friends for the last two years. We’ve gotten close and we worked a lot of different things, but we have and Mr. Sibley sat right here the other day and discussed some things. I asked him how do you make your decisions when it comes to zoning. Cause I’ve talked about several specifics and I’m going to talk about those here in a minute. I thought those were zoning issues. For example, from different meetings we’ve had, we’ve hosted some meetings where Mr. Brown has come, Mr. Gibson you were there and I appreciate you coming and Mr. Charles Kirkland came that night. Every time we’ve had a meeting over time, every thing changes. Like the number of houses that are going to go in there. How much are we going to develop, all this kind of stuff. We’ve heard anywhere from 75-100 homes that are going into this one piece of property. When it comes to LifeCare, when Mr. Mijalis came to us, when LifeCare was actually Charter Forest when they first came, we worked together and helped pass that to where it could come down to City Council and we could put Charter Forest right there. We’re not opposed to a community. What we’re opposed to is we don’t have a clear picture of what this community is going to be. They’re talking about having black topped. No curves in this community. Which means basically these people are making $36,000. (Unclear) I don’t know what they’re going to make, that’s immaterial to me, to be honest with you. But they will have to keep up with those roads, they’ve got to have a kitty somewhere or something. Because the City is not going to do that. But what I understand is probably after about four or five years, if these roads deteriorate, they’re going to come and ask the City to take these over and bring them up to actual code. Now my understanding from the City is that they cannot, the City cannot take over these roads until they bring them up to code. Well, lets be honest. The likelihood of that happening is going to be pretty slim. Also we’re talking about the zoning. You put a hundred houses right across the street, the main opening is right in front of my church. That’d be great if I was just a church. But I’m a school, I have an academy there. I have a school zoning right there in the front. I have issues now concerning traffic on Sunday morning. Also Monday through Friday people come in. I’m also a day care there. Has 300 people. Currently my school has 600 people enrolled in the school. We’re getting ready to have a full high school. We’re getting ready to have we’re projecting 800 students coming right now on our campus. All of a sudden, we’re putting a main entrance there in front of our church. Also we’re talking about the possibility of having a traffic light. Well, that’s all news to us. We’re not against a community. We’re just trying to find out exactly what we have. Now, every time we have talked to Mr. Brown, and I know Mr. Stephen Brown is here and we’ve met on several occasions, myself with him and we discussed some things. I think we’ve been making progress. When it comes to the zoning, if I understand the process correctly, from what I know about City Engineer, I understand City Engineers finally at some point and time have got checked off on the actual what goes in there. I understand that process. But what I’m trying to get to and ask you to do, to be businessmen, looking down to the future and say, ‘okay, what this place is going to be like in five years, because the developers are going to make their money. And one of the big issues that’s coming next month is they’re trying to get the re-zoning done. And they’re making big lots into three lots. So, the density of the of the houses proportionately goes up. Currently, I’m not a City worker, engineer or do I claim to be. But I have heard that currently there’s certain issues when it comes to drainage coming on that side. I just want some of these questions answered before we do the re-zoning because it does affect me in the future. It does affect these homeowners, it does affect LifeCare as I talked to the lady today when the trees were down, currently right around the facility where they have basically a senior adults for rehab. They’re also a place where senior adults will go and its not hospice, but they will pass away (unclear) because I’ve visited there quite often. That’s what we’re asking for the City Council, either (a) to hold off until the other cases come, so we can get a full picture. (b) have an opportunity where they can come in and provide us with what’s actually taking place. Mr. Sibley who sat right here said basically, we do not have a check list of one, two, three, four, exactly how it is. Now, I understand if you look at the zoning map, there is one that says R-1D, which is what we’re talking about currently right here. What I’m asking is, is it what they have currently in that particular neighborhood, because what I don’t want to have happen as I told Mr. Brown, as I told the MPC, if this development is done correctly Mr. Jackson, is that I win. Bottom line, I win. But right now, we don’t know exactly what we have because we get pieces here and Mr. Sexton, Seaton who sat right there, who is the Chairman that day has asked on two different occasions a full picture of what we’re talking about. That’s what we’re asking for. We’re not anti community. We’re not anti housing. We just want to know exactly what we got. We want to partner. We’re trying to partner. I think the Browns will have an opportunity to partner with us. If we can all come to common ground. Ultimately, I know this and I close. Somebody is not going to be happy. It’s going to be us, or it’s going to be the ones that’s developing. One of the two. What I’m asking this Council to do is give us the benefit of the doubt to help us in our neighborhood, cause we’re trying to revitalize it, we’re trying to build down there and we’re trying to invest in it, and it’s to help us in our investment. We have $20,000,000 on that corner now. I’ve got $5,000,000 that’s probably getting ready to be placed before our people in the next couple of months. I want some help and to help build that community and do some things with that property. Thank you.

Ms. Wynne (429 Wynnewood): I’m here also with Mr. Angell. I’m a member of Calvary Baptist Church. My daughter goes to school there. And I do live in the subdivision. Our main concern is the zoning and the size of the lots that are going on there. Y’all have talked about workers and people that are going to work on the hotel. These homes are not being built in Shreveport. They’re being built away from here, trucked in then put up. I mean, a lot carpenters, my dad is an air conditioning man, he’s going to lose jobs. I mean, there’s things other than that need to be issued on. But as far as the zoning, we have lived there for five generations on Wynnewood. Dr. Wynne, James Wynne, he went in drew the subdivision up and the lots were 141.7 x 90. And he has all the neighborhoods, all the following streets have followed those rules by the way he drew it up and that’s the only thing that we wish to be the same, is draw it up, lets make sure the proper drainage and everything goes through and everybody gives special attention to the road and what needs to be taken care of. We don’t oppose the (unclear). I would be glad for my children to have people to play with. I mean, I have a seven year old and a newborn. And we have cousins on the streets and it would be great to have other kids. They were talking about putting a park in the very beginning of it. Well, the neighborhood, we have a park up at Calvary. I mean, I think that would be a waste of space. But we have a park up at Calvary that our kids can go and play there. What I want to know also, is a percentage of the blocks in the proposed subdivision with the square footage actually- - - what will it actually fit on. What size house will fit on that lot. And just the type of homes, you showed the picture earlier. This house resembles my home. My house is a brick home, it’s not sitting off the ground. These are nice homes. Good people will be living in there, they’ll have good jobs and they’ll support our community because we’re really lacking over there in South Shreveport. And I think it would be great, but lets just keep the zoning the same and lets’ get the houses down there and work together. That’s the only thing we want to know, is if we can keep that and what do we have to do to work together so everybody is satisfied..

Mr. Deloach (1847 Hickory): I’m from Mr. Walford’s district and I come in regard to the Hattie Perry Recreation Center. We are deeply grieved because our swimming pool has been closed for a year or so. And we understand that it probably will not be opened this year and we are deeply concerned about that. We have children who have learned to swim in that area. My children and grandchildren have enjoyed that pool and now it’s not going to be opened and we are concerned about it. Now, we are told that the pool cannot be opened. Could not be fixed. And we are concerned with all of this technology that we have, that we cannot fix a pool. But we would like for the pool to be opened. We have both adults and young people who need the pool. I, myself need it. We have other members who, their doctors have told them to use water therapy and we could certainly use the pool there. But we are also concerned that we are not getting adequate programs in our center. We feel that we are being treated as second class citizens and nobody likes that. And I’m sure that you don’t like for me to be treated that way. I know I don’t like to be treated as a second class citizen. And what we are asking the Mayor and the Council to do is to look into the situation and do something for us. If you can’t open our – we’d rather have our pool opened Mr. Walford. We’d rather have our pool opened. But if you can’t open our pool, give us some programs. Now, I understand that in order to put exercise equipment and a lot of the things that we need, it would be necessary to enlarge the building, so, lets do something. Please sir. Please sirs, lets do something for us and let us feel like we are important. Let us feel like we are a part of this great City which everyone of us is so proud of. Thank you.

Mr. Wills (1619 Easy): Mr. Mayor, you talk the talk, but it don’t seem that you walk the walk. We want the same thing that you want. Even playing field. Even playing field for District B in the City of Shreveport. I want you all to ask yourselves, is it fair for all the other districts in the City of Shreveport to have swimming pools and the kids, my little granddaughter from Stoner Hill got to be bused somewhere else to swim. Is that an even playing field? Is that an even playing field? We want the same thing you want Mr. Mayor. Is that an even playing field? Where all other districts can have swimming pools but District B. My grandchild. I’ve worked in this City all my life, my wife. We’re homeowners, we’re taxpayers, and my grandchild got to be bused out of Stoner Hill to somewhere else to swim? Oh no, no, no. Before I let her do that, she won’t swim. I’ve got too much pride. Talking about giving us a sprinkler. How they gonna learn how to swim with a sprinkler? Tell me that Mr. Mayor? Is than an even playing field? No, I’m like this sir. It’s time for us to let you know we’re not no second class citizens no more. I don’t understand why? I look at the morning paper. You got to cut. But I don’t understand why. I can see in the morning paper where you’re giving Highland Association $55,000. Where did that money come from? I don’t understand what I see in the paper this morning. $90,000 put down on Clyde Fant Parkway. It seem to me, I can’t tell y’all how to run your business, but it seem to me that when you start cutting the budget, don’t cut out the things that people are getting cut out some of the money that you’re giving away. It don’t make sense, you gonna cut out all our activity, that the citizens are entitled to. We’re entitled to that. But when you say, you need to cut the budget, you’re giving out money to associations, everywhere else. $100,000,000 (unclear), get $25,000. Where all this money come from? I tell you I can’t tell you how to run your business Councilmen. But if you’re gonna start cutting, cut where you’re giving it away. Don’t cut the service. That’s backwards to me. And I’m going to tell you something else, seem like to me too Mr. Mayor. Look like you got a certainly particular area where you cut at. I hate to say it, but I’m just calling a spade a spade. You don’t cut in Broadmoor. You don’t cut in Southern Hills. But you can cut Stoner Hill every time you cut. You can cut Hattie Perry, you can cut Queensborough. I don’t know how y’all find that, but some kind of way, you do. I’m here today asking and pleading with you, Councilmen, we need a swimming pool in Stoner Hill. We need a swimming pool in Stoner Hill. $33,000. $33,000 is all it takes for citizens to enjoy the service. Regardless of whether it’s 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 or a 100. They are entitled to that as taxpayers. We’re entitled to that. We’re entitled to the same service every other district gets Mr. Mayor. Everything Broadmoor gets, Stoner is entitled to. Now, lets face the facts. Now we’re either going to start getting it, or I’m going to be here every City Council Meeting until I be heard. Because something got to give. I’ve had to swim the Red River. We didn’t have a swimming pool in Stoner Hill. And now, I’m going to let my granddaughter swim, and ain’t got no where to swim. She ain’t going to Red River. She’s going to have a swimming pool. Now they got a swimming pool right there beside the school. Nine months out of the year, they bus them from the school. One of the best schools in Shreveport. It’s strange to me how Valencia wasn’t good enough, but now, it’s one of the best schools in the City. Right in the heart of Stoner Hill, they bus our kids out of there everyday, 5:00 in the morning in the winter time, on the corner of Herndon and Easy Street in front of Oakland Church, my wife and I looking out there at little children standing on the corner shaking, to catch the bus to get to school. Then they go to school for nine months on the bus and come home for the summer to enjoy themselves and they got to get on another bus to ride somewhere to swim, that ain’t fair. Would you want your children to do that? Just ask yourself this question. Would you want your children to do that? No, you wouldn’t want it. Not and being taxpayers. It’s too much money in this City to be asking for $33,000. That ain’t no money. That ain’t no money. But I found one thing. When you right, and the Lord know you’re right, He’ll make a way for you. You know it’s strange how people that’s been born again can see when people are for real. It’s a White church in District B, I got a call Friday that says Mr. Wills, I’m Father So and So. He say, I see where y’all are trying to raise money for your swimming pool. My church wants you to know, we’re going to donate some money to help y’all. You know it’s bad when a city this size can’t see when people are trying to do what’s right. Now, you know the strange thing? If we were out there on that corner, they’d find some money to put us off. If we were out there in those streets, they would find some money to put us off. Here we’re trying to bring the kids home and have somewhere for ‘em to go, and then too the community is entitled to that. That goes along with your community. Just like the church. Those things that you expect for a community to have, and when you take away from the community, you take away from the growth of your city. So, we’re asking you again today (unclear) that you all would consider (unclear) to open up Valencia Swimming Pool, Stoner Hill area. We’re not going to accept nothing else. Sprinkler is good, but our children can’t learn how to swim with no sprinklers, that’s an insult. That’s an insult to us. And let me say another thing about these sprinklers. You can go put sprinklers where they already got a swimming pool. But why do you take the money and you put the sprinklers by another swimming pool, than open up a swimming pool that was closed. Am I making any sense? I think they don’t want us to see that. But you know to me, why put water beside water and the folks over here ain’t got no water. I just want to know, do it make sense? Cause I didn’t go to college, and I don’t proclaim to be no scholar. But to me, you’re going to put the sprinklers beside a swimming pool and close the swimming pool down over here. If you would have took that money you put those sprinklers with beside those swimming pools, you would have had enough left over to open up Valencia swimming pools. I can’t tell you how to run your business, but Councilmen thank you. And I hope you will consider this for me please. Would you want to put your children through that. A town this size with the money we have, here is a taxpayer, a homeowner, would you let your children go through that? Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Wills, you touched on it and I want everybody to hear it that you and I talked and I think that’s very important for everybody to know. We’re asking for $33,000, we may not need all of it, in fact we know right now. I hope my colleagues will join me and help me open the pool.

Councilman Jackson: I just want to be clear while Mr. Wills is here and while Councilman Walford is saying, and I have no problem with the – I got a problem with that. And if the kids swim and the ones in MLK, I don’t have the luxury of being concerned about Stoner Hill only. I’m concerned about the entire city. And I think that problem goes beyond the Hill and obviously, I think the point he makes, while he talks about Stoner Hill is true when applied across the board in other areas as well. So I don’t want it to be lost in this council as to why Councilman Walford advocates for that you know we as a council, we don’t the luxury of being myopic with these decision and that we have to look city wide for some issues like this as well and I hope that we will look to go with a plan that will accomplish more than just Stoner Hill, but will also include Stoner Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chair

Mr. Wills: Mr. Chairman. Can I say one more thing? Mr. Walford, and then to – we are trying to do our best to try and help raise the money, but Mr. Walford with due all respect we do believe that it’s the city responsibility. Now we are willing to go – I don’t think we should have to as being tax payers, if we did not pay taxes it might be something different, but I think y’all would be cheating on us if we have to come out of our pockets to help open up a swimming pool in our neighborhood, when we pay taxes just like everybody else in this building. But if we have to we are willing to do it, because my granddaughter is not going to bused no where to swim. But I do believe that it is the city’s responsibility, not only Stoner Hill, Mr. Jackson, Hattie Perry, & the Fairgrounds, & Anderson Island, and I am telling you I would not be standing here talking because if these where White kids I would do the same thing, it is not right. It is not right. I think that everybody ought to be treated fairly, as tax payers of the city. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mayor Hightower: I’d like to make one comment. First of all I appreciate Joe’s enthusiasm, and his passion, for the cause. And back when the budget was put together, SPAR was instructed to go back and make some hard decisions, the reason they made the decisions they made was use. And Mr. Wills, I think that you are absolutely right, I think that it is important that everyone is entitled to amenities that the city can afford, I think and I certainly have been an advocate representative of Stoner Hill for – while I was on the City Council, and continue to represent them today. So it is not a matter of do we want to neglect anybody it is a matter of the best way to use the money priorities, and the best way, and the reason that SPAR made the decision they made is because there wasn’t enough use. And it sickens me every summer when we read about kids that have drowned in the lake or fallen into a swimming pool that didn’t know how to swim, perhaps because they parents never took them to a swimming pool to give them swimming lessons. So it is in the entire city’s best interest to have every pool open to have every pool full. I wish every pool had three, or four, five, six, hundred kids like Southern Hills does. What I would challenge you to do, is instead of going out to raise money in the neighborhood, I am like you I don’t think that it is fair that Stoner Hill ought to go out and raise money to open Stoner Hill’s pool when we have pools all of the city and nobody raised any money. What I do think that we need to do is take on a challenge to get more kids to the pool so that budget ax will never fall, on Stoner Hill or anywhere else, because we have kids that come to the pool everyday to swim and learn to swim, and if you can give us that commitment, that your efforts will be not out raising money to open the pool, but to recruit kids to come in and use the pool and lets have some fun and let’s eliminate possible disaster then you know that this City Council is in a moot, we are not talking about a lot of money, it is $30,000 in the skim of things is not a lot of money. And I think that this council is open mind to have the pools open up if we know that the tax payers are getting their bang for the buck and the way for them to get their bang for the buck is to have every child in Stoner Hill, every child throughout this city to participate in summer swim programs so if you can give us that commitment to spend your time helping to recruit kids and one other thing that I would ask you to do. Can you lifeguard? You look like a swimmer.

Mr. Wills: You know the funniest thing about it is, as hard as I am fighting for the swimming pool, I can’t even swim.

Mayor Hightower: We want to teach you.

Mr. Wills: Now you would think that I could swim as much (inaudible). It is not all about me Mr. Mayor I am glad you said that and then to it is time also, for the community to start doing something for themselves. We are not handicapped, I am asking the churches in Stoner Hill to donate money for refreshments, when the kids come. I am asking the church that they see to their kids coming to the swimming pool, but they going to also need people there to chaperon. We are going to have to be there to over see our own kids. If we want them to be supervised we got to do it ourselves, we can’t ask the city for everything. Now if the city can supply the swimming pool, it is going to be left up to the citizen in each neighborhood to make sure that those children are down there chaperoned and then we will have refreshments for them, and we will have decent, home some, clean fun. That is going to be the neighborhood part, now what happen with the attendance there years ago they opened the pool for one week, and they closed it down and it has never been open since. Prior to the end, I don’t know whether it was the budget, but they would not open a full week. Sometimes they would open two days a week, sometimes they would open three times a week, sometimes they would open for two hours, to the kids just got confused to go down there and nobody there, so they got confused really and they just stopped going, because that is what had happened. So I did not understand, but after I figured out and we say what they were doing, and we said that it was not right for them to do that, but if we had a certain time like all the rest of them open and close, the kids would be there. I promise you that, the kids – you came out when the city had something out there not to long ago and we had three or four hundred kids out there, you know the kids are there, and all we need to do is have something for them to come to, but we would be willing to make to sure that we get the kids there, if we could get the swimming pool open. And another thing I look at your budget, when you look at it, in the cutting you only looking at a budget for May, June, July, August, and it stops. That overhead that you got it gone (inaudible), so you are not looking at a budget, you are not looking at money for 12 months, you are looking at money for maybe four months out of the year. Now I anit smart now it might or it may makes sense to you all but it make a little sense to me. It anit no 12 month budget, so why are you going to cut a budget that ain’t but two or three months ain’t nowhere to cut if you cut a budget for two to three months you know what you are doing to it, just like they are doing, you cutting it out. Thank you.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Mayor, one of the things that concern me is, you know when you wrestle with this idea of opening these pools. I think there is a difference between what happened 20 years ago and what is happening today, and of course I think obviously I was talking with Mr. Norman, and I think budget impacts that as well. But you know I think there is a correlation between why tax payers don’t get the bang for there buck, and in a weeks time maybe ten or fifteen kids will go to the pool and it probably because only ten or fifteen of them and maybe not all of them even know how to swim. You know one of the projects, one of the things that I think to me, when we start talking about voting on pools, and you know while it may not be popular, I am not just for opening the pool just cause Mr. Wills says open the pools, just because she or he somebody says open the pools, because there is a great liability connected with just opening pools, because folk say they need pools in every neighborhood. I believe that but I ain’t going to sit here and say that I am going to say that I am for just for the sake being. Everything that we do as a city ought to have some logic connect and ought to be functional and we ought to have the best interest in mind,. Children don’t know what is best for them most times. And there are some children who in the name of fun who will just go and jump in the pool, don’t know how to swim, I got a concern about that. Somebody drowns we are not going to get a lot of citizens lined up to come and talk about that, we still have that responsibility, we still have that liability, but what concerns me is to open a pool for a purpose. When I was growing up half a day you could not go swim at the pool because lessons where going on and in the afternoon you could go and swim because that is when it was open to everybody else, but they spent the first half of the day with people who were paid by the City we are talking about paying. I don’t – I am not interested in paying people to watch folk swim, you know to just be out there at a center where there is a pool, there ought to be some instructions. What our problem is not the lack of pools, it is the lack of programming, associated with pools that would teach these young people how to swim and then we in essence take care of next years problem. Because if they know how to swim then we have more consumers for pools, but if we continue to enroll that programming piece and to teaching part of it, then we are going to continue to come back and we are going to see next year who will be the next Joe Wills, who will be the next person to talk about their pools, and while that’s a problem I think that what he’s talking about, is not the problem it is a symptom of a larger problem, and the larger problem is that to open it up and you don’t have any consumers I am not sending. Mr. Wills said, think about this what about your kids, my kids took lessons at Carver YMCA, and I ain’t going to send them to go swim anywhere, bus to no bus, if they don’t know how to swim, and I hate to see kids who don’t know how to swim get on a bus to go anywhere to swim as well. So I think the bigger problem the bigger issue is programming and I am in support of these ordinances or whatever I have one on that – an amendment on that for this purpose as well, but I wanted to be connected to and mines also have money that deal with personnel so that SPAR can have people available to teach kids how to swim, and the second half of the day it can be open for rec swimming. But if you don’t have programming that is teaching young people how to swim I am not going to support it.

Councilman Carmody: Council I think that you are absolutely right. Thank you. If I could call Gary Norman to come before us right now, because I know that a number of people have come here today to talk about the cost to open the swimming pools in particular areas. Mr. Norman I am not sure if you actually have the report. Do you have that information in front of you? Could I ask you to – when I called you about the expenses to open those pools that have been closed down throughout the city for the last couple of years, you had provided me this (inaudible) report before the meeting. But could I just ask you to kind of run through it so that the public what the cost is associated in order for SPAR to get up and running, with these facilities, the different ones that are closed.

Mr. Norman: There is a number of different issues that we have to deal with, as far as pools go, you know I mean we got everything from cleaning chemicals, cleaning start up for the pools, we got a situation where we got a lot of old pools and some of these we got controls for the chemical feeds for the pools and all that needs to be replaced. We have to put up filter tanks, that particular one is Valencia, that is one of the bigger cost that we have for about $12,000 for a filter tank that needs to be replaced and we have got another couple thousand dollars in motors that need to be replaced real bad. So those are the basic cost along with the lifeguard, you know just to address the issue of swimming lessons we do have swimming lessons at most all of our pools. What we had a couple years ago, where we had swimming lessons we tried to teach it at every pool that we had. We had situation to where we had only maybe one child to sign up for swimming lessons, and we did not feel like we were doing justice you know with our program what we have done is we have increased the requirements for our life guard instructors, to have WSI certification to teach it all. And quite honestly we are trying to keep it in a little bit more of control environment so that we don’t have what we had a couple of years ago, which was a death at one of them. So we are all working hard to try to provide that, certainly I think what Mr. Jackson was saying has validity and we are trying to do what we can to program, but I thing as Mr. Wills said I think that it is important that if we do open pools that parents get involved and let’s get the kids up there and then as the Mayor said, this want be a problem anymore. We will have the numbers that we need to justify what we are trying to do.

Councilman Carmody: The hard cost just on Valencia along looks like the equipment is $19,910.00

Mr. Norman: Yes sir, right at $20,000. The other pools that we have I think the Fairgrounds and Anderson Island, we are looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of $16,000 in hard cost with them, not hard cost, that includes the total cost of lifeguards and that would be for each one of them. The other that we have as we said would be Hattie Perry a pool that basically needs to be replaced.

Councilman Carmody: The cost to replace the Hattie Perry pool, it says in addition to the repairs, Anderson Island, Fairgrounds, and Valencia will each need a pool liner installed. The liners are necessary to contribute to the pools to not to continue to loose water and will help in stabilizing the existing shell to use the same type of liners that we have installed in other pools location throughout the city. The following is an estimate to install the liners for Anderson Island, $50,000, for Fairgrounds, 75 (thousand), and for Valencia it’s 50 (thousand). Subtotal cost of liners for pools is $175,000 that would not be feasible to try and do that this season.

Mr. Norman: No sir, if we are going to stay in the pool business with these then we need to fix them correctly so that we don’t have these problems every year. But part of what we have done with the bond money that we had for repairs of the pool and then put in the liners in each of our pools and go in and try to fix them. We did have a company look at Hattie Perry pool to see if it could take a liner, it was a manufacture who came down and looked at and said that it couldn’t, that it was in such a bad pool.

Councilman Carmody: So it would require a total replacement?

Mr. Norman: That’s what I was told.

Councilman Carmody: And so the cost for the total replacement at Hattie Perry, and existing swimming pools would approximately be?

Mr. Norman: Four hundred thousand dollars.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, so that I guess comes to, and there is a notation at the bottom that says, for SPAR to continue to operate we would need a general fund increase to accommodate the cost of the pool personnel, the chemical, the electrical, and the miscellaneous repairs. The figure in today’s dollars is approximately $67,040 annually; in addition to the increase in the general fund budget SPAR would need a capital fund, budget increase by $778,000. A increase in the capital budget would allow for the installation of the filters future filter pumps and motor repair in the new pool at Hattie Perry. Okay, so that then give the council at least and the public an idea of what expenditures that SPAR has anticipated.

Mr. Norman: Right, and keep in mind to, that a lot of these are reoccurring expenses, you know from year to year.

Councilman Carmody: Right.

Mr. Norman: You know pools, and we can tell you from experience, that you are going to have to continue to have to replace items on these pools and they are not cheap to replace.

Councilman Carmody: I think that you do actually have to keep them up longer than just I guess the summer months, cause I guess normally chemicals have to be, I’m familiar with having to keep one clean, but it doesn’t belong to me, but that is a whole another story, but I appreciate you getting this information together and I am sure that the council will take this under consideration. Thank you very much.

Mr. Norman: Thank you sir.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION:

TO INTRODUCE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

RESOLUTIONS:

Motion by Councilman Gibson , seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt resolution 124 of 2004.

Councilman Walford: I reviewed but I would have to say I might not have totally comprehended I believe that, well I would like to think that I have done justice to the report. It appears to be like a golf scores since we have been on golf so much, that the lower the score and maybe Mr. Strong will quickly verify this for us, but lower the score the better and we are 113 out 560. So apparently we did well in our evaluation.

RESOLUTION NO. 124 of 2004

A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED AN INTERNAL "MUNICIPAL WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION REPORT" CONCERNING THE NORTH REGIONAL WASTEWATER PLANT

WHEREAS, the state permit under which the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant operates requires an internal survey form to be completed annually and submitted to the City Council for review; and

WHEREAS, a form for the past year has been completed by City administrative personnel, after consultation with engineering and operational personnel, and is attached hereto;

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

That the City Council acknowledges that it has reviewed the attached survey form, and that the ongoing capital projects at the North Regional wastewater treatment plant, in conjunction with ongoing collection system work, are intended to maintain compliance with the conditions of the plant’s permit.

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.

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

Motion by Councilman Lester , seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt resolution 125 of 2004. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 125 of 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOHN HENRY DANSBY & DORIS JEAN JAMES DANSBY, LOCATED AT 6440 NORTH LAKESHORE DR., TO CONNECT TO THE SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, John Henry Dansby & Doris Jean James Dansby have agreed to secure ll 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 John Henry Dansby & Doris Jean James Dansby, be authorized to connect the building located at 6440 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.

Motion by Councilman Lester , seconded by Councilman Gibson to suspend the rules for the purpose of consideration of Ordinance 46A of 2004, the matter of the renaming of Lakeside Golf Course to Jerry Tim Brooks. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

1. ORDINANCE NO. 46A OF 2004: AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NAME OF THE LAKESIDE PARK GOLF COURSE TO JERRY TIM BROOKS GOLF COURSE AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

Having passed the first reading on April 13, 2004 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 Gibson for adoption. The Clerk read the explanation for the following amendment:

Amendment No. 1

By: Councilmen Lester & Gibson

Amend the ordinance as follows:

1. Immediately preceding the Now Therefore Be It Ordained clause, insert the following:

WHEREAS, Jerry Tim Brooks died on Wednesday, May 12, 2004; and

WHEREAS, House Concurrent Resolution No. 185 (which is attached), was adopted by the Louisiana Legislature on Thursday May 13, 2004, "(t)o urge and request the city of Shreveport to take all appropriate and immediate action to rename the Lakeside Golf Course in honor of Jerry Tim Brooks and to recognize his outstanding accomplishments"; and

WHEREAS, House Concurrent Resolution No. 185 also contains the following clause:

WHEREAS, an avid golfer, Mr. Brooks’ love of education and efforts to encourage youth participation in golf recently led legislators to introduce a bill, no longer necessary due to his passing, that authorized the city of Shreveport to rename Lakeside Golf Course after him (emphasis added).

2. The Now Therefore Be It Ordained clause is amended and enacted to read as follows:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the Lakeside Park Golf Course is hereby renamed the Jerry Tim Brooks Golf Course.

3. The second Be It Further Ordained clause is amended and enacted to read as follows:

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that for the reasons stated herein, the provisions contained in Section 78-452 (2) of the Code of Ordinances are waived.

Motion by Green, seconded by Councilman Gibson for adoption of the Amendment.

Councilman Jackson: I don’t have my screen it is not up. I am not familiar with the amendment.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Thompson could I ask that you would read the amendment? Please sir.

Mr. Thompson: Yes sir, because of the death is an explanation okay or do you want me to read the whole thing.

Councilman Carmody: Explanation.

Mr. Thompson: Explanation of amendment: Because of the death of Mr. Brooks and the adoption by the Legislature of Concurrent Resolution No. 185, this amendment waives the 90 day lay over provision and other provisions of Section 78-452(2) of the Code of Ordinances. The adoption of this amendment will allow the immediate adoption of this ordinance.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford on the ordinance as amended.

Councilman Lester: Thank you, I just wanted to tell the family that is here and the people that have gathered. We really appreciate what Mr. Jerry Tim Brooks meant for our community and what he has meant for young people in recreation of this city and we can talk about what Mr. Jerry Tim Brooks meant for hours and hours, but that is not necessary you have already spoken on that issue, we just, obviously we wanted to do this while Mr. Brooks was still able to get all of his flowers, but the one thing that gives me a certain amount of pleasure is that he knew that we were going to do it just as soon as the legislator had done it’s business. So at least at some point he got to smell some of his roses while he had lived. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: I was going to touch on that same thing. For the benefit of the family this council did do a resolution urging the legislator to pass Representative Powell’s bill to allow us to name the course and Mr. Brooks sat right here on the front row and was beaming. He was really pleased. I think that he would be glad to know that.

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

Councilman Gibson: On the same light as my colleague, we do have serval people in the audience and to expedite something I would ask to suspend the rules on case# S-31-04.

Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Green to suspend the rules to consider the matter of S-31-04.

Councilman Jackson: I know that we got to take up something, but I didn’t know – I thought Mr. Gibson, had a comment on the last vote, that we just took that is why I was agreeing. I did not know that we were moving for something else, but I just wanted to add my congratulations to the family. No that’s okay, I just wanted to say that.

Councilman Carmody: I would repeat to the court congratulations as well.

Councilman Green: Same thing, I did not know that he was – I thought he was getting ready to say something on the vote I had comments. So after we vote on this I will make my comment.

Councilman Carmody: Very good. I do have a motion and a second to suspend the rules to take up the matter of S-31-04.

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

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yesterday I had mentioned that we, I was going to ask that this issue be discussed.

Councilman Carmody: I need a motion.

Councilman Gibson: I thought we did make a motion.

Councilman Carmody: That was to suspend the rules. I need a motion know to adopt.

Councilman Gibson: Excuse me, I make a motion that we adopt case #S-31-04, or uphold I think the ZBA or MPC’s decision.

Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Walford to uphold the decision of the MPC.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Gibson the floor is yours.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, I apologize.

Councilman Carmody: That is quite alright.

Councilman Gibson: Let me cast my vote real quick. Again yesterday I had mentioned that I would like this to come off the table. I think two weeks ago we had the opportunity to vote on this particular appeal and I asked that this body for a two week delay. The reason for that is I was in the process of working through Randy Coke and Steve Angell, the associate pastor of Calvary Baptist Church to hold a town hall meeting at my request of the residence and also some of the representative of Calvary Baptist Church. A copy of those minutes were given to you yesterday, I hope that you have been able to go through that but just so I can read into the minutes that town hall meeting. The meeting was held, and I really appreciate Steve Angel and Brother Rick Edmunds for hosting the meeting, but also asked Charles Kirkland to be there. The reason why I wanted Mr. Kirkland to be there is because, one this councilman does not have, just like any of you, do not have any influence over MPC, we are a separate atomist of groups, and he was there to be the technical advisor, because he could not speak on the details that are on the original hearing, but he did answer significant questions. We also had two parish commissioners there, Lindora Baker our parish commissioner, and also a representative of Life Care Facilities, and also David Cox the parish commissioner. We also had as I can see one, two, three, four, residents from Kenneth Road, which is affected. And we also had one, two, three, four, five, residents off of Wynwood, which is also affected by this zoning change. And then we had both the pastor and associate pastor from Calvary Baptist Church. We also had the consultant the Civil Engineering individual who is designing the streets, Water Sewer & Drainage, Mr. Ralph Brown who went through the project the development specification unveiled at that meeting which I was there to learn what the project was and what the project was not. The home values were ranging from 100 to 160 thousand dollars underground utilities, street lights, a gated community, private streets, total number of homes up to 60. Lot size minimal of 72 hundred square feet up to 11 thousand. Average size home 2000 square feet heated, minimal set back of 20 feet, by the way other developments in private developments in this city like the Haven, and King’s Crossing, which I think most of you are very familiar with that one in I believe Councilman Carmody’s district and one is in my district have 10 foot set backs, a green space and also this private development has a home owners association. In addition to the discussion modular homes specification where given. Yes in fact this is the first development of it’s kind in Shreveport, although it was discussed in great length that these developments are happening all over the country because of the improvement of technology and things of that nature. When loads of 100 miles per hour, which examples of structure that are 100 miles per hour or more are Century Tel Arena and the Shreveport and some of the Shreveport Water Towers that are in the vicinity. It meets, exceeds the City of Shreveport Building Codes with flooring solid concrete foundation of which the home is bolted into the foundation that is the only way that those wind loads could be sustained, enclosed garages example of modular homes was given and I believe if I need be I encouraged you to talk to Mr. Kirkland, who I think visited a modular home that was constructed in Blanchard, Louisiana, and the modular homes, and I have bold and underlined are not mobile homes. The residence concerns drainage, traffic, water and sewer, capacity the depreciation of home values on Kenny Road, by the way in that meeting I asked the residence on Kenny Road what their average home value was, and they said 120 thousand dollars. Then there was the concerns about schools, that the residence would attend, type of financing, what type of people would move in the development and what effect it would have on churches and neighborhoods, and then the modular home itself. Other concerns expressed, by Calvary Baptist Church was specifically concerns about the sizeable concession that were being made by residence and the church regarding the request of zoning change from a RA to a R1D, with the exception of a small section of the patrols development as I understand it the RA designation the line share of this development is already zoned R1D. Mr. Kirkland of the MPC provided the insight on zoning change stating that this zoning change request is not uncommon for the City of Shreveport. Kenny Road residence expressed concerns on how the development will effect their future home value stating that the development is a trailer park. The MPC approved this zoning request at on April 7^th, at their meeting there. Again I was there to hear what the project was and what it was not, and I heard all the aspects of this thing and I think that it is a pretty good reflection of what the minutes of the meeting were and again it was a very enlightening meeting on both sides. If I could gentleman I would like to ask Mr. Kirkland to come forward and discuss some of the components specifically on what this project is in terms of things – what his agency has to go through in terms of signing off application, like with there were concerns about drainage and capacity on traffic, and density of homes of that nature. Mr. Kirkland could I ask you to come forward on that?

Mr. Kirkland: Gentleman of the council, I will keep this brief. The process for a subdivision is straight forward, and that’s what Robert at the documents camera if you could turn that on for me, I want to show you something, I don’t know if you could hear me. If you have it on your computer screen you see an area that is outlined in the cross out red that is about 600 foot strip of property, there are fronting on Kenny Road, is this piece right here. That is what the subject of today’s discussion it is already zone R1D, all the developer in this case was asking was subdivide the lots for me or sublet it into six, 10,000 sq. ft. lots. This is the first of serval subject pieces of property. Piece B (inaudible) from on Kenny Road, and then we have the other section which would be before you, I ‘m sure fairly soon. So there are three pieces involved, but the piece today they all involve the same type of housing and I think Mr. Gibson you have already pretty well covered it. But essentially prior to the MPC voting on these matters in the city we have a Design/Review Committee, it involves me, Mr. Strong, Mr. Norwood in Engineering, a member of the MPC, as well as Spike Dalton sitting in on it. What we do is review the exact development we look at the water, the sewer, the drainage, all of those issues is it private, is it public, all of the things that are required by that ordinance that set up that design review process to see what problems if there would be. We are not at that point talking zoning at all other than does it meet the zoning law. And zoning law in the in support of subdivision of land dictates the size of the lot. It dictates the minimal size of the lot 7200 sq. ft. is the minimal size of R-1D. They could build on a five acre lot if they wanted to. So it is a zoning and the minimal size of the lot is and in this case 10,000 sq. ft. lots and the rest of the development for some of the speakers today were talking about will involve some other sizes but none less than 7200 sq ft. If you look at right across the road on the Kenny Road residence the majority, there’s the label of R-1D, their lots are clearly in most cases either two thirds of a acre or one acre so they are clearly larger but that was something that a choice by whomever developed those lots at that time. They have been there a long time, so it was more of a rural type development when that occurred. I think what you see going on here and we see it on a regular basis on the planning commission level on our subdividing, you see the fear of people to something that-- now, mobile homes have been with us a long time, and you hear that real plain. Some of the rules and the laws that are governed where you can put those either far out in the rural area in the parish one acre minimal lot or they have to have special exception approval. We are not talking mobile homes here even thou I will submit to you any home that is brought in from outside an area placed on a lot regardless of the style or construction the public thinks of it as mobile housing. Now that is the generic thing that the public attaches to it even thou there must be as many types of housing that has been built in University Terrace, Broadmoor, all over this city that I have seen myself penalize types of component type modulate that we have some definition is our laws that describe a so called "factory built" housing unit. It’s one that has a minimal pitch roof, it has a minimal dimensional loom no less than 20 feet has to be attached to a foundation. Now it can be piering beam it be curtain wall it can be a lot of different things I don’t think you want to know all of that, other than salient parts of the concern of this development is that it is a new type of housing we have not seen this type of housing in Shreveport to my knowledge, there may have been one or two that was brought in but there is nothing in our building code that precludes them or makes them go through any other zoning requirements or any other type of approval, other than the building codes have to be meet zoning codes have to meet, and otherwise they are used by rights. So I guess this gives them unless there are other question I don’t know really what else I could tell you other than this is straight forward subdivision matter. Now the other cases, will involve some re-zoning pud throughout approval, or re-zoning from RA or R1D. Any other question that you might have?

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, Mr. Kirkland.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chair, could I ask Mike Strong to come forward for a second? And this is in reference to the concerns about drainage and also water and sewer capacity. Mr. Strong thank you very much. Could you talk in terms of those two issues in terms that concerns by the current residence and Calvary Baptist, that was an issue that was brought up in terms of the water sewer capacity out there and also drainage.

Mr. Strong: Well number one all of the items that have to deal with that would have to come back to our engineering department for final proof, from the drainage side to once we ensure all the engineering is done. As far as the water capacity, they have no issues that I know of on that on the waste water side we do have some issued that are going on and Cedar Grove lift station. This is on a list for an upgrade, so what we are seeing is during some of our rains we do have some capacity issue that fill up the main during that period of time. But during normal periods of time we do not have any kind of capacity issue. Drainage I know that once they are starting to build closer to the bayou, we are going to be addressing specific funding issues with them.

Councilman Gibson: So your department would have to have whatever the developer puts out there you have to sign off on it, they have to comply with all the ordinance of the city and also any of the regulation under the EQ or EPA?

Mr. Strong: That is correct, they would not be involved as far as anything with the EPA or the EQ it would be through us.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, and in addition to the capacity issue you had shared with me when I brought these concerns to you, from what the residence had brought to me that you felt that in the very short future that the list station issue was going to be address and is in the process of being addressed.

Mr. Strong: I would like it to be shorter than probably you and I would like to see but probably within we are working on different lift station right now this probably a three to five year process, where it will be able for an upgrade.

Councilman Gibson: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s all I have.

Councilman Walford: If I a asked I think my question would be addressed to Mr. Gibson. When you were reading us the summary of your town hall meeting. Under other concerns Calvary Baptist Church expressed concerns about the sizeable concessions are being made by the residence in the church. I don’t understand what the concessions are?

Councilman Gibson: Well again I would have to ask Mr. Kirkland, you were there –

Councilman Walford: (inaudible) Right.

Councilman Gibson: I just recounted what were the minutes of the meeting and Mr. Kirkland you were there, could you address that issue as you understood it?

Mr. Kirkland: If it is already R-1-D I guess I am confused on what the concession are.

Mr. Strong: It’s in my opinion exactly what it says in the (inaudible). The type of housing that’s being brought in and that will cost the board and this city and parish scares people to death until they know what it is and particularly when they have nothing to compare it to. They have not seen this type of housing but they know that the offers has been straight up in telling them even on this where I just want the lots through I am going to put those type of housing there to. The people are more comfortable with if you believe it stick build site built that type of housing is running anywhere from 100, 103, 105 dollars a square foot. This housing does cost less, even though it is not what I would call low cost housing by a long shot, hell a lot of folks can even afford to even think about even a 100 thousand dollar house. And yes somebody making 35 - 45 thousand a year can afford if there credit is in good shape, they can afford this price range home. And I believe to it does even thou the perception is that specialize financing or subsides financing, not the case here. This has become a FHA, VA loans, and other conventional type of loans, with no down payments.

Councilman Gibson: There really has not been any concession made for any zoning.

Mr. Strong: No sir, not at all.

Councilman Walford: That is what I was looking for. Thank you very much.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chair, I did want to enter into the record that the developer did provide and I think that Councilman Green had alluded to and the appellant comment a copy or at least photos of the different models including both elevation and interior. And again that was for your consumption and I do appreciate the developer for providing those photos to give both specifications and also to give visuals I think it can always help to be able to see what you are dealing with especially when we are dealing with a new development of this type in Shreveport. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you , Mr. Gibson. Any other questions regarding the, at this point we have a motion and a second to go ahead and approve, is that correct?

Councilman Gibson: To uphold.

Councilman Carmody: To uphold the project case S-31-04. Are there any other question gentleman?

Motion passes by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Green. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilmen Lester and Jackson. 2.

Councilman Carmody: That then brings us back onto our agenda Madam Clerk I believe we are at ordinances, which I show we have none, which will then bring us down to Item 9 Regular Agenda Legislation.

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION

RESOLUTIONS:

RESOLUTION NO. 115 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND THE PARISH OF CADDO, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, La. R.S. 39:1701 et seq. authorizes the City of Shreveport and any other subdivision of the state or public agency thereof to expend public funds for the cooperative use of supplies and services under the terms of a cooperative purchasing agreement; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport and the Parish of Caddo desire to enter into a cooperative purchasing agreement under the terms of a contract the City of Shreveport entered into under the terms of public bid no. 03-002 as extended through December 31, 2004.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that Keith P. Hightower, Mayor, be and is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Shreveport and the Parish of Caddo, substantially in accordance with the draft thereof filed in the Office of the Clerk of Council on XXXXXXX.

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 Walford for adoption.

Councilman Gibson: Could I ask the administration just a brief over view of – what exactly is that. I know what a cooperative agreement is.

Mr. Thompson: It is to purchase tires to enter into an agreement with Caddo Parish they have already called out the bids and we would be able to purchase tires and services.

Councilman Gibson: I think that it outstanding I just wanted to make sure that, I think that would obviously benefit for the tax payers. So I appreciate that.

Councilman Carmody: Any other questions regarding the authorization of the Mayor to enter into a cooperative endeavor agreement.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 116 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH RED RIVER ROAD RUNNERS, INC., AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Red River Road Runners annually sponsor the Red River Road Race in the City of Shreveport; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has been a co-sponsor of this event; and

WHEREAS, this year’s event will be held November 6, 2004; and

WHEREAS, the race provide a benefit to the public as it provides wholesome recreational activity for all citizens of the City of Shreveport and surrounding areas; and

WHEREAS, the City’s continued co-sponsorship of this event will enable the Red River Road Runners to continue to provide this wholesome event to the citizens of this city.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular, and legal session convened that the Mayor is authorized to execute a contract with the Red River Road Runners, Inc., for the Riverside Road Race on November 6, 2004, substantially in accordance with the draft thereof which was filed for public inspection with the original of this resolution in the Office of the Clerk of Council on May 11, 2004.

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

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

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

RESOLUTION NO. 117 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EMPLOYMENT OF SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, it is the City’s desire to retain the services of outside legal counsel to provide assistance to the Department of Community Development involving loans or other transactions which originate in the Department’s Bureau of Business Development; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.03 of the City Charter, the City Attorney recommends that Dannye W. Malone, with the law firm Jeansonne and Remondet, Attorneys at Law, be retained for such purpose at a flat-fee of $750.00 plus costs per loan transaction.

NOW, 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 he is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Shreveport, a retainer agreement with Dannye W. Malone, with the law firm Jeansonne and Remondet, Attorneys at Law, substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of the draft thereof which was filed for public inspection, together with the original copy of this resolution in the office of the Clerk of Council on May 11, 2004.

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

The Deputy Clerk read the resolution: Resolution No. 118 of 2004: A Resolution ratifying the signatures of the Mayor on two permanent utility servitudes, as well as on a document of permanent utility servitude cancellation, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Walford to postpone the resolution until the June 8, 2004, council meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Hogan. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 119 OF 2004

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO APPROVE AN INTERMODAL TRANSIT FACILITY COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER FOUNDATION; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF A SECTION 3 (5309) APPLICATION WITH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR A GRANT UNDER THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED.

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

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

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

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

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

1. That Keith Hightower, Mayor, is authorized to execute an Intermodal Transit Facility Cooperative Endeavor Agreement between the City of Shreveport and the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Foundation and to file an application on behalf of the City of Shreveport/Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Foundation with the Federal Trasit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, to purchase property to be used as an intermodal transit facility, pursuant to Section 3 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, as amended.

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

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

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

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of the resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and, to this 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 motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Hogan. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 121 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HIRING OF SUMMER INTERNS ON THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the employee staff of the City Council has a heavy work load in preparing and reviewing legislation for council members, preparing agendas for meetings, transcribing minutes of meetings, preparing correspondence for council members, analyzing the budgets prepared by the administration, and undertaking other matters of concern to the City Council and its constituents; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the exercise of the functions of the Council that it have sufficient employees to carry out these responsibilities, and the hiring of summer interns will assist in meeting that requirement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Clerk of the City Council is authorized to hire up to seven summer interns on the City Council staff, in accordance with the following conditions:

1. The positions shall be temporary, beginning no earlier than June 1, 2004 and ending no later than August 31, 2004.

2. The wages for the positions shall be $6.00 per hour, and hours shall not exceed 20 hours per week for each position.

3. Qualifications. Any person hired shall be a high school graduate, and shall be a student at a college, vocational or technical institution, or a business school, or shall be enrolled therein for the fall semester, 2004.

4. The authority granted herein is subject to sufficient funds being appropriated in the City Council budget for wages and salaries.

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 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 motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Lester for adoption.

Councilman Carmody: Is there any discussion gentleman?

Councilman Walford: I’ve got a number of questions here. This one really concern me while the intent, I think is good I think it is in direct violation of the Charter. The Charter in Section 4.12 says, "The council may employ and fix the salaries of such employees as they are necessary for the exercise of its function that is set out in this Charter. So, Mr. Chairman if I could keep my voice, and I could, I’d like to address several questions to the Clerk of Council.

Councilman Carmody: Yes sir, please. Mr. Thompson, could I ask that you assist Councilman Walford?

Councilman Walford: Mr. Thompson, the council currently have six employees. How long have we had the number.

Mr. Thompson: At least ten years.

Councilman Walford: And at what point did you determine that the council needs to more than double its staff.

Councilman Lester: Question, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: I’ve got the floor, Mr. Lester you can talk in a minute.

Councilman Lester: It is not his bill.

Councilman Walford: You did not ask for a debate, but at the end of my ten minutes I will be glad to yield and you can ask question. I would like to know how long I mean when did you decide that we needed to double our staff.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, this was not driven by our office, it is a decision that will be made by the council. And so that’s –.

Councilman Walford: I guess I am concerned now. What functions will the interns do?

Mr. Thompson: Whatever are assigned to them and us as a result of this action.

Councilman Walford: But basically we are completing, we the council staff, is completing all the functions that are required by the charter?

Mr. Thompson: We certainly hope so.

Councilman Walford: I thought so. So, gentleman, I would say that this is clear violation of the Charter. We all took an oath to uphold the law unless we want to go to the voters and ask them to amend the Charter, I think it is very clear what our vote should be on this one. I think that the intent is great and I think that if we want to have interns they need to be in a department where were we are authorized to do it but not for the council. I think that this is wrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s take them in order. As I appreciate it my colleague Mr. Walford ask for a City Attorney’s opinion on May 21, 2004, and there was a response. Ms. Glass could you go over that response in the City Attorney’s opinion # 2004-007, please?

Ms. Glass: Yes, actually I don’t have it in front of me and my computer is frozen but, okay but I remember what it says in any case. The threshold question is under Section, I believe it is 4.12 of the Charter is that the council makes the determination that employees are necessary for the exercise of the function of the council and then the other issue I think that was raised was rather they could be assigned to individual council members. And I think the opinion says, under 4.12 they can not be assigned to individual council members.

Councilman Lester: Okay, I would say gentleman that this is a worthwhile program it is not violative of the City Charter Section 4.12. Clearly, this is not an issue to say that the City Council can not function without them I think that this is an issue where the function of the council can be enhanced. Clearly, this action is not prohibited under our City Charter. Now, I am a lawyer and we all know how that goes if you have three lawyers you can probably get three opinions but don’t believe me our City Attorney who was assigned to give us advice and counsel who we seek advice and counsel on more than one occasion, has told us that in fact this particular resolution and ordinance does not violate neither the spirit or the clear language of the City Charter. So I would ask that we would support it and move forward and I think that everything else is self explanatory. Quite obviously this was not a scenario where our Clerk asked for this because I don’t think it’s our Clerk’s job to promote legislation, positively or negatively. As a matter of fact our Clerk has done an yeomen’s job of staying out of our way in terms of proposing legislation. I think our Clerk basically, we tell our clerk what’s on our mind and he gives us both sides of the issue and gives us advice as to how to complete something but this is not the Clerk’s idea this was mine, and so I would just ask that the Council support this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I guess I must have been wrong I thought that Mr. Walford according to the Shreveport Times was a supporter of it and I thought it was a good thing because we ultimately are talking about jobs for the summer for young people who are in my opinion it is not about I think we start talking about the Charter and Ms. Glass and others you can help me those of you who Councilman Lester are attorneys, I think that when you willfully violate what you know is the law, I think what the spirit of what is being even offered today is in a two things; (a) allowing young people to interface and embrace and to be engaged in public in civic responsibility and civic work. Secondly, I think also that it is an opportunity to give younger people an opportunity to work. If the money factor is the biggest piece, which I haven’t heard anything talked about that, I don’t know that’s even a big piece and I am in favor of the idea. Obviously, we want to do it within the bounds of the law and that which is right but I support the idea. I am not going to find any technical ways to get around it, I support the idea. My question becomes if this council supports the idea then why don’t we figure out the right way to get it done, and rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water let’s figure out a way to get it done. But to suggest that we throw our hands up and we are not for it to me sends a awful sad message to young people who perhaps would engage in these opportunities and so Mr. Chairman, I would certainly urge, if in fact, there some reticence with regards to this particular issue, if in fact if there are some unreadiness rather than scrapping with potentially can be something that’s a plus for both those young people and for us in my opinion then I think that it would be prudent on our part to at least do more of what I guess the councilman I guess who are unready will consider due diligence and to not just to scrap the program because I would like to see somehow or another that this can work for young people and perhaps assist in this whole council process as well. And finally, while I appreciate the work of the staff as well, it’s the responsibility to this City Council to figure out just what Julie, Ms. Glass, when she talks about the function of the council aid and assisting and the function of the council, and that is not best dictated by the Clerk. That is best dictated by the council itself. So I would ask that we would continue to think along that line and I think there are some legitimate questions about Councilman Lester’s ordinance that ought to be asked but in my opinion it ought to be in the spirit of trying to move forward, and finding out -- because if not this then what. You know do what we did last summer, which was nothing, do what we did the summer before, which was nothing, and you know I am hard pressed to find progress and constituently doing nothing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If, Ms. Glass, if these individuals that work for the Council Clerk can’t work directly for the City Councilmen, that tells me that they are housed at the City Council Clerk’s office. Is that right?

Ms. Glass: I believe that it was what I understood it to be the plan.

Councilman Gibson: One of the logistics I guess, Councilman Lester is and this is addressed to Mr. Thompson cause I think you have the management of staff and everything else over there. Where are we going to put these seven individuals?

Mr. Thompson: We have a conference room and we also have one office that is not in use.

Councilman Gibson: Well one conference room for six people and, – it’s a logistical issue. You are going to answer that? I defer it to Councilman Lester for a second.

Councilman Lester: Right, first of all the task that we are talking about, they are task that would be assigned to us in helping fulling our duties. I am not looking for and this measure does not contemplate each one of the particular interns having an individual office because that is not necessary. You have a conference room that is available, you have an extra desk in the meeting area, and a office that is available, a common area where work can be done, and aside from that you have two other rooms that on to the side of Mr. Thompson’s office that are available for the process of doing work. There is equipment there, there are computers there, there are phones there. I think that it is just a willingness to actually make this work. I don’t think that it’s a logistical nightmare, and certainly I don’t foresee a scenario where – and there might be a scenario where all seven, if there are in fact seven that are there at one, I don’t think that it’s a scenario where they can’t get done what we ask them to do, and I certainly would except and hope that many times some of the things that they will be helping us do would be in the process of in this meeting. As you know and has happened in the past we have had issue where we need to get information at the council meeting and all of staff is down here.. Well had we had interns much like many other bodies we could have that intern go retrieve particular information and move the progress of the meeting forward. So I don’t think that it is a situation where we have to have every "I" dotted and every "T" crossed, because from a process framework the functionality is there, the space is there, the equipment is there, and certainly I would argue that the work is there. Because I know as you as many of us do there are many task that we are charged with as councilman that are extend far beyond what our council staff have to deal with. So I think this program will give us an opportunity, as I see it not only to have some young people involved in the process but I think it would inure to our benefit because it could help us to be that much more effective.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Chairman. Again he answered my question. Obviously, I didn’t say it was a logistical nightmare it is a logistical issue that has to be dealt with. I guess too, we are looking at what I consider a pilot program if anything. (2) I have to say because it is a pilot program obviously there’s gonna be some thoughts of either expanding it, or looking at continuing of this situation somewhere down the line. I would feel comfortable in asking that we attach an amendment to it asking that, I guess it would be our Council Clerk give us some information, so as we move forward on cities of this size, do they have like staff? I know in Houston, Texas there are councilmen that represent 300 to 350,000 constituents in a district, but they have a full office, they have a full staff, and all those other things and as you start to move in this direction obviously, seven people needing equipment, and again we’ve gotten some minimal equipment up there, but it is going to open up another dimension of which I think is defiantly has as Councilman Jackson, has said has tremendous merit in what we are dealing with, but we also need to be prepared cause I just ran some quick numbers, and maybe I am off on this. It seems to be a reasonable investment of $9360, if I ran six people excuse if twenty hours a week at six dollars an hour, and actually I messed up cause I only went with six people and it ought to be seven, so it is actually a little bit more than that,on a pilot process and I guess they would be on contract or they would be full – part-time employees. Are we taking payroll taxes out of this, at six dollars an hour? Has that been talked about?

Mr. Thompson: We assumed that they would be part-time employees.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Gibson: So on contract or –

Councilman Carmody: No benefits.

Ms. Glass: They are temporary.

Councilman Gibson: They don’t qualify for benefits.

Mr. Thompson: Temporary/part-time. I think the City already has a temporary part-time, so whatever that would be and I don’t know if Ms. Glass knows.

Councilman Gibson: Well I’m just asking some question, cause again those are things that are going to have to be dealt with, but if we got pilot program here I think that – I would like – I would feel comfortable with having an amendment that with at the end of the pilot program, be able to have some information back to this Council to say; "Gentleman in the future somebody behind us is going to look at that. If we have a city of 201,000 people out there, do they have similar things, and maybe they can come back with some other information that we may not have thought about, but I applaud the effort but I would like to make an amendment to that, asking for that information at the end of this pilot program."

Mr. Thompson: Whatever the member would like for us to do, he just needs to tell us and we’ll –

Councilman Carmody: And the amendment must be in writing, if I’m not mistaken.

Councilman Gibson: Well then I’ll withdraw it, but I will just tell my colleagues, I will send that to Mr. Thompson, because I think it would be important, come the end of the summer to see what other cities are out there doing that, because I think that may be a question that will be fired at us by our constituents at some point and time, because again, we just had Mr. Wills up here talking about keeping pools open and other things and again, $10,000 is $10,000. But I don’t think any of us consider that small money no matter what. But at the same time, all of us at some point have talked about accountability and things of that nature, but I will make a point, and I withdraw that motion to send a letter over to Mr. Thompson. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Green: Thank you Mr. Chair. I would just like to say, how important it is to invest in the life of a child. Those children from Linwood were here earlier. And they are interested in seeing what we do and wanted to know what we do. I’m sure basically, everybody up here during the summer, when we were growing up took a job somewhere, whether it was cutting somebody’s yard, or doing some type of chore. How much is a child’s life worth to invest? We’re talking about $9300 to give a child an opportunity for a summer program to make some money, to invest in that child. I think that’s what we ought to be doing. I think there are businesses around town that, who go after that every year. And here we are, the leaders and we’re figuring out the bad stuff, what else could happen and why this and I just think we ought to start putting our money where our mouth is. We talk about we want wonderful children, we want them off the corner and we don’t want them out there on Sunday’s and whatever. And I just think that we ought to invest in them. So, I wish I could vote twice. But I can’t since I’ve already voted and I just think that it ought to happen. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Hogan: First of all, I’d like to say, Councilman Lester I appreciate your idea and your boldness in bringing this forward. And I think it is a good idea. I’m going to make some comments and don’t misunderstand my comments that we could possibly reach a compromise on this. I’m gonna attack the thought and not the thinker. So, I guess my first question would be where I read in the resolution or the ordinance rather, it says "4) the authority granted herein is subject to sufficient funds being appropriated in the City Council budget. So, I get for seven interns at 20 hours a week for 12 weeks, I get $10,080, which is about what we’re talking around in the $10,000 range and I’d like to hear someone tell me where the money is coming from?

Mr. Thompson: There is a companion Ordinance No. 67 amending the 2004 Budget for the General Fund Budget. Which if adopted will appropriate $8,000 for this purpose.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, where is the money coming from?

Mr. Thompson: It is coming out of the operating reserve.

Councilman Hogan: Out of the City Council budget?

Mr. Thompson: No, this is new money coming into the City Council –

Councilman Hogan: Operating reserve, okay. Alright and Mr. Lester, why did we choose seven? What’s the rationale behind having seven? Is it one for each Council District? Is that kind of what you’re thinking?

Councilman Green: Seven is the number of completion.

Councilman Lester: Thank you. That’s a good answer. No, obviously the City Charter says that each Councilman can not have a staff person working for them. But I just thought it was fair that , if we are going to have representation for the City there should be seven folk and each councilman will get an opportunity to nominate a young person from their particular so that we would not have a situation where all of them would want from one particular area or one of them or all of them from another area. I just thought it would be good to have representation from across the City. So, since our City Council is a portion in the number of seven. I portioned the amount of interns in that same number.

Councilman Hogan: And I’m reading here is June 1^st which is, somebody might help me, is a week from tody, I believe. Monday is Memorial Day the 31^st and so next Tuesday -- and so obviously the hiring process is going to take some time and I’m thinking of the time frame on this as well. If we have a week to hire these people or go through applications, is that gonna be enough time and plus who is going to be responsible for the hiring, to do the interview process?

Councilman Lester: Okay, I can answer those questions. The purpose of the June 1^st was, if you read the legislation says, the positions are temporary beginning no earlier than June 1. Quite obviously, if there is someone you had in mind or you’ve been in contact with people in your district and maybe have someone in mind for a program like that, you could suggest that person’s name and we could move forward on June 1^st. To the extent that you wouldn’t, that person’s actual compensation obviously would be less than the amount that you’ve budgeted because there wouldn’t actually be on the payroll until at such time that, that happens. So obviously there will be a savings. Second of all in terms of the hiring process, what we did was with the legislation, we had the qualification section, Section III , says any person hired shall be an high school graduate and shall be a student at college, vocational technical institution or business school or shall be enrolled therein in the fall semester 2004. So the discretion is up to you as a councilman to suggest someone for this position. I’m sure many of us know of any number of qualified young men and women that are out there that could do a good job in this particular program and I will leave that process up to individual council members discretion to suggest the person that they chose. And I think it would be a matter of once that individual council member selected an individual, forward that information on to our clerk, and then the process will began from there.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, thank you. And one other concern that I have is that I believe that it would appear that seven is too many, that was my first impression, was that seven is a large number that – I would be willing to go along with this if we could reach a compromise for a lower number of interns. You know, if you – how many do you have in the council – we got six people now, Mr. Thompson? I mean, you know, if all of you stop what you are doing and took time to train people on what to do, on whatever you are going to have them do, obviously your workload is going to build up. You are going to have some time you have to allow for training and so, Mr. Thompson would you care to comment on that. Do you have any ideas on that of how who will be responsible for training and for – I mean do you feel like that would be an hindrance to you instead of a help?

Mr. Thompson: Sharon will take on the primary responsibly but all of the employees would pitch in whenever it makes sense for them to do so.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chair. I could answer that question.

Councilman Hogan. Okay, Mr. Lester.

Councilman Lester: What we are hoping for is that, I know that there are seven, at least seven bright young people within the confines of the city of Shreveport that could handle an internship with the city council in terms of returning phone calls, in terms of maybe dealing with some letters; in terms of dealing with citizens contact; in terms of dealing with a number of the myriad of issues that we have to deal with on a day to day basis. I would not expect us to – or any one of us to submit a name of some person for this position as an intern that was not able to handle the work that we are going to be doing. At the same time we are not hiring and we are not looking for particularly, a staff person such that if you were like a state representative or state senator or something like that, quite obviously, the bar that you would place would be pretty high in terms of a person working in an internship. But what we are talking about – and when we talk about this internship we are talking about high school graduate, hopefully someone that is a student in one the fine universities of either our city, our state or our country and I’m pretty sure that we can find one person in each one of our council districts that can handle this. To be honest with you, I’m surprised that any of my colleagues have not gotten a lot of phone calls because after it was in the paper this morning my phone began to ring pretty excessively with a number of what I would deem to be qualified young people, I have gotten a number of e-mails and I would suspect that if we are successful in passing this resolution and the companion budget ordinance that you will probably be deluged with young people that would be more than qualified and able to handle this particular responsibility from your district.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you, Mr. Lester. I haven’t been home most of the day so I could have some phone calls waiting in my answering machine at home about this. I did see the article in the paper this morning. My impression is that again, I would like to start with a lower number. Of course, next summer if we feel like we can review it and say it was a success, you know, we hear feedback from the council staff saying they did well, they were a big help, we could use more and then I would be in favor of increasing the number. You know, it is going to be hard – it is going lot of responsibility taking on seven people trying to train them and so my suggestion would be to start with a lower number other than seven, maybe two or three and then we could always add to that later next summer. As it stands now I’m going to have to vote against the seven number. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Mr. Hogan. I guess now it is appropriate now for the Chairman to makes some comments before everybody else goes to their second comment. Mr. Lester, I do want to applaud the effort. I encourage persons to get involved with understanding more about the workings of the community in which they live and I don’t think any of us wants to be against employing young people especially through the summer months. I guess there a number of things that came to mind when I first saw this and maybe its having now been on the council, I guess the only person that has been here as long as I have now is James but – Mr. Green, is that I took the job or I should say I asked to serve my constituents understanding that I would have the benefit of the clerk and his staff to aid me in working through the research that was required in order to understand the issues that would be addressed, to also field the phone calls, letter, complaints, request for services that the citizens that live in District C make of their councilman. My concern in this is that if we create another layer of communication that distances this council member from his constituents then I don’t feel like I’ll be doing them that service. It’s not that I feel like that I have some sort of responsibility to them to be there when they call. What I have found over my tenure on the Shreveport City Council is that what I might have believed was going to be an 8:00 to 5:00 job Monday and Friday is all hours of the day and night when people need help they are looking for somebody that will pick up the telephone and be receptive to at least hearing them out and then trying to assist them and if the calls for District C were directed to the City Council Office and then let one of the interns pick that up, again, my fear is that there will be a break down in communication. And if we’ve gotten adequate staff so far to assist the Chairman and the council members then to add on to their staff, at least, and I guess what we are proposing here is just temporarily for the summer, then it will require some training and some – I would say some mentoring as well as some oversight by our staff and I try my best not to put to much burden on the staff to ask for their assistance and I will always sing the praises of the staff because y’all seem to be able to work as diligently as you can to meet everyone’s expectations before we get to the council meetings. I don’t believe I have ever been disappointed in our staff as it exist. But we are talking about persons who although college, excuse me, high school graduate, college, they would be their in essence – the learning curve I think would be far greater than just a three month period for them to field phone calls and to draft letters and again, maybe because I’m self employed and it is a one man shop in essence, I’m use to doing my own letters and trying to return my own phone calls and the only time that I try to burden the council – staff, excuse me, is when necessity demands some more information and I don’t know that I can call an intern and say, Suzy Q, need you to get me the information regarding this issue because Suzy Q is gonna then have to then take that note and hand it to one of the staff members, they are going to end up having to do the research, hand it back to Suzy Q. Suzy Q in turn calls me and says it what it says. I say, you know, thank you, I need to talk to one of the staff members to kind of ask their opinion on what this information actually means. There again is my concern. I applaud the effort to try and employ people. I applaud the effort of saying it would be nice for us to have additional help but along the lines of what other communities might do – I know in New Orleans, the council members have staff, they have cars, they have a lot larger salary then what we have but again they are a lot larger community then what we have. And so, at this point I don’t believe that I can support this because again, although I applaud the effort, I think that the expenditure of the funds, although minimal, when you got Mr. Wills down here asking us to find $33,000 and you got an administration over here that has got a proposal to re-budget monies because the influx of revenue that we anticipated at the beginning 2004 is not coming fruition and so we got to decrease what we have anticipated in revenues. It is hard to weigh that on the balance of trying to find the money to cover all the obligations we currently have. Those are my comments and I will go to each person in the order for their second comments.

Councilman Green: My hand has been up for 30 minutes.

Councilman Carmody: I know but Mr. Walford had asked me from the beginning, once everybody had gone through and I would come back to you Councilman Green.

Councilman Green: I thought he said he would yield.

Councilman Walford: I did?

Councilman Carmody: I don’t know. Did you hear him say that he was going to yield?

Councilman Green: I thought I did.

Councilman Carmody: Well, you want to yield?

Councilman Green: I’m sorry. I thought that is what you said.

Councilman Walford: Okay, again, I applaud the effort. I still don’t agree that the City Attorney’s Opinion says that we can do this. It says if we find it’s necessary for the exercise of our council functions – we are talking about creating new functions, the hiring the staff first. But the concept is so good and the amount of money is so small and I will support such an effort and I commend Councilman Lester for his one per council district idea but I think I would only support it in the Council office with one person working on the assumption that each of you is going to go on vacation and we can staff up by one but I would like very much to see the other six working in other departments whether it be SPAR, DOS, MPC, spread them around. We don’t need seven people in that Council office and I don’t think that we can sit here and legitimately justify seven people in there. But I think the concept is great, the amount of money is small and if we create some employment, I think if we do a little bit of amending on Councilman Lester’s proposal we could come up with something good. We might even give the Mayor one, who knows.

Councilman Carmody: Archie likes company.

Councilman Walford: I was thinking more that they could share an office with Mr. Antee or Mr. Dark but I think the concept of giving some young people an opportunity to work here in government is good. I just don’t think the Council office is the right place to put seven people. It would even be interesting to rotate them but again, I won’t support this. I don’t feel in good conscience I could vote on it, putting all seven in the council office but I will support it if it is amended to spread them around and give them to the other departments and give them the chance to work in other departments 20 hours a week for the summer, that I think would be a great opportunity for them and would be a benefit to the City. And again, that way I would support it. Thank you.

Councilman Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman. If there is anything that basically that make my blood boil is when we talk about not giving children an opportunity. We talk about this being the land of the free and the opportunity and as I look at us dissecting this as to finding all of the bad stuff as to why we can’t help seven children. My question would be, be careful as to how you dissect it because you don’t know who you might be helping. Out of that seven they could be whatever they want to be in America. Ten thousand dollars, at the most to invest. Mr. Wills was just up here talking about giving children an opportunity and even if these children – seven children for $10,000 to get them off the street to give them something to do, if they didn’t do nothing but come out here and sit down and watch us and tell us about how we act up here. That would be suitable. Take the mail down. Just to give them a positive atmosphere. I mean, somebody gave everybody up here a chance and if we cut the number down, the council members up here that don’t want a child out of your district to work where you work then say it to them over the mic and let they parents hear it so that the next time that it comes up for your election then they will understand not to give you an opportunity. We all want opportunity. We knock on the door. We knock on folk doors, campaigning. This is a free year and the next two years we are going to be knocking on doors, saying, give me a chance. I want to go back up there again. I want to go somewhere and be elected. Give me a chance, I’m going to do this, I’m going to do that and we are going to want them to give a chance. We are going to want them to take a chance on us. So the council members that don’t want a person out of your district to work, a child. I mean, you can’t find one child in your district that you can see fit to help to give an opportunity. I mean even if they didn’t do nothing but just come up here and took notes as to what went on, just to learn something, just a positive attitude. I mean, that would be very commendable. But we always try to figure out how is it that we can make this look bad. We take the merits away and I think we got to move beyond that. We got to live outside of the box. We are too box centered and we got to get outside of the box. We need to go somewhere. Say, well how many cities doing this already. I don’t know, let’s be a pacesetter. Let it be on the news that the Shreveport City Council not only have 10 hour meetings but now they are going to hire seven children. And maybe some of those children could tell us how to cut these meetings down even with just the money that we talk for seven or eight hours. We could just take some of that money and pay these children. We would even have to worry about even making a budget amendment because if you just look at the record since we have been here, our budget has gone way up and nobody is complaining about that. These folk here, we got to still pay them. Normally, and as you said Councilman, you and I, this is our second go around. Meetings use to didn’t be this long but for some reason one of those seven could come and tell us how to operate this a little better. And then if in fact we get it operated then we could cut back on the money. If we just cut – if we say, well I tell you what, we are just going to go down the agenda and just take care of business and not make it so political and then we cut back on how much we are paying for all of this stuff to go into the paper and all that stuff, we wouldn’t even have to worry about a budget deal. And sometimes we don’t take stuff because it wasn’t my idea and then we don’t do it because we wonder what they are going to say. But I just think if in fact you don’t want a child in your district to work then it is plain and simple. You don’t have to select one. We don’t have to change a legislation, all we have to do is just you don’t recommend nobody. If you don’t recommend nobody then that number is automatically cut down. We don’t even have to do that and with that Mr. Chairman if it is okay with you, I call for the question.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Gibson to end debate.

Councilman Carmody: Any discussion? Gentlemen, at this point we are talking about ending debate.

Councilman Lester: I do want to have discussion and –

Motion to end debate denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, and Jackson. 3. Ayes: Councilmen Walford, Gibson, Hogan, and Green. 4.

Councilman Carmody: So at this point then there is a motion and a second to --

Mrs. Glass: I believe it’s a 2/3 vote to end debate.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you very much. It does not pass. So at this point then, if I remember correctly, it would be Councilman Jackson’s second comment.

Councilman Jackson: Yes sir, thank you Mr. Chairman. And I just wanted to – I took notes while we were, while I listened to everybody talk the first time. We talked about the tremendous learning curve. Well, I thought that was the point. It supposed to be a vertical learning curve. Because we’re not hiring a staff to come on professionally and to take the place of the people who are here, we already have professionals. So I expect that the learning curve would be vertical for any of the people who are coming in. So, that’s not as big a deal. I don’t know about Councilman, well excuse me. I don’t know about any other Councilman, but if in fact the staff was expanded, it certainly would make it a whole, I mean on a permanent basis, I’m sure it would make it a whole lot easier on a whole lot of people. I think the reason the staff has not expanded has nothing to do with not having anything to do, but without having a budget to be able to support a larger staff. Because I’m shocked that there are Councilman got that much free time. And maybe that’s a good thing that you’ve got that much free time. But as much assistance as I could get, I wouldn’t have to lean on people who I pay to do other things to help me out on those kinds of things, would certainly be a help to me. This summer program is not going to solve our problems 365 days of the year and I doubt very seriously it will go a long way in solving the problems even over the summer. But I don’t think that’s the issue. I think at some point, we have a responsibility to look at cost versus benefits. And we talk a lot about cost, but care very little bit about benefits. Councilman Walford said that maybe we ought to assign ‘em to different departments, we don’t have the authority to assign them to different departments. We’re dealing with this only because this is something that deals specifically with the Council Office. The Mayor, Mayor Hightower, we don’t if I’m not correct – if I’m not mistaken, we can’t mandate you to assign interns to different offices, can we? We vote today and say the Mayor must do a certain thing? And then you got to

Mayor Hightower: You know I’ll do anything you want me to do.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, I know for me. At any rate, but what I’m afraid of is when we say let’s divide them and send them to other departments, I’m sure they will be amenable to that. That is not the issue. I think the issue becomes we are voting on something that the council needs to do and I guess one of the things that I have seen that looks like a trend today, is that we want to put stuff off on other people. You know, to maybe they can do it. What about what we can do? And you are like Councilman Hogan, you want to cut it down, say that. But to hide behind these weak excuses of maybe we can do – it would be great if they were else and all. We don’t control that. All we are being ask to vote on is the stuff we can control and we always in my opinion, the frustrating thing to me is, you know, I want to call for the question myself and vote like Councilman Green did but at some point I think we just need to deal with what we got to do, yea or nay and be done with it and vote your conscience. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Lester: First, Councilman Green, I apologize for voting "no" on calling the question but it was something that I just had to say and I would not be doing this issue just as if I didn’t say this. Many of us are not two-termers, many of us this is or first experience dealing with government and I can appreciate where the Chairman comes from, he’s working on his second term in office. The fact of the matter is, we all took this job. We knew what the pay was. We knew what the benefits were and we had an idea of what the job was but until we actually got it and start working it we didn’t know what the effects of this job was. And I would dare say and I can speak for myself only, I take my responsibilities as City Councilman very, very seriously and I would dare say that all seven of us do. We all make our own individual phone calls. I mean, Councilman Carmody, I know has staff at his personal office because I have called and got his voice mail and I have talked to his staff and the whole purpose of his staff is to assist him be more effective –

Councilman Carmody: As a real estate agent.

Councilman Lester: To help you be more effective in your job.

Councilman Carmody: My real estate job.

Councilman Lester: Exactly, right.

Councilman Carmody: My real estate job, they do not do anything as far as the City.

Councilman Lester: Exactly, right. But the point of the matter is, you have staff in your capacity – if you want me to be a lawyer, I’ll put my lawyer’s hat on. But the fact of the matter is you have staff at your real estate office to help you in your program of work. Is that not correct?

Councilman Carmody: In my real estate?

Councilman Lester: In your real estate program of work.

Councilman Carmody: Correct.

Councilman Lester: Okay, you do not do everything that is required as a real estate agent, as a matter of fact you have just recently ascended to the position of real estate broker which means more responsibility and you delegate more things on a day to day basis.

Councilman Carmody: That’s an assumption. On your part but that’s okay.

Councilman Lester: Well, I –

Councilman Carmody: That’s okay. I follow your (inaudible)

Councilman Lester: I wouldn’t assume to the extent that my father has been in real estate for 30 years and my family has some experience in that but that is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is the whole purpose of having additional staff whether you are talking about your individual capacity, whether you are talking about council capacity whether any capacity that you are talking about is to help you become more effective. The whole purpose of this particular piece of legislation is to give some young people an opportunity to invest in this process but at the end of the day we are going to benefit because, I can’t speak for anybody else, but I think we have the ability to be more effective. We spend $10,000 on pavement at a soccer field in Stoner Hill. Measure that against the utility of this particular situation and I don’t even like doing this let me, please allow me take two minutes to toot my own horn for just a second. Now, and I ‘m not doing this to cast dispersion on any of my other colleagues and please except this in the spirit that I’m about to offer this. But with all due respect Mr. Chairman and I think we can get the media to look this up. This particular Councilman has done the most bills, the most programs, the most initiatives then any other councilman up here. And I’m not saying this to puff myself up but that just is a fact. Now, we can go through and talk about what one person is doing, what another person is doing and I have, you know in my program of work, I do my own letters. The fact of the matter is at least from my standpoint, we got neighborhood investment program; we have got the Fair Share Convention Center Complex Committee; we got a master plan for the MLK; we got a Property Standards Committee; we got a CDC in the MLK and we got tasers. All of this on my council deal and I maintain a full case load in a law office and I have a wife and two kids. Now, I’m saying all that to say this, we all have things that we have to do, obviously. This is an scenario where we can maximize our utility to be more effective. Now, I don’t know what anybody else plans on doing in terms of dealing with their intern but I know for a fact I know of any number of bright educated hard working young people that live in a confines of District A that not only can come in and fill the job as an intern, could probably come in and do my job if not better than I can. So I don’t think that is an issue. If we want to support this, support it. If you don’t want to support it, don’t support it. But for us to nick-knack-patty-whack the whole nine yards, I think that is insulting. I think it is intellectually insulting to us and to the constituents. The fact of the matter is, if you want to be in support, vote for it. If you don’t, don’t vote for it. And if you don’t want to support the deal, fine. If you don’t want to use your intern, that’s fine we got a place for them. And with that, Mr. Green, I call for the question.

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

Councilman Carmody: So, at this point we have a motion and a second on the floor to consider the adoption of the Resolution 121.

Motion to adopt passes by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Gibson, Green, and Jackson. 4. Nays: Walford, Carmody, and Hogan. 3.

RESOLUTION NO. 126 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS RECEIVED ON IFB #04-025 FOR VAULTS, VAULT TOPS, AND VAULT EXTENSIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONAL SERVICES / OFFICE OF WATER & SEWER / DIVISION OF FIELD OPERATIONS AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, two bids were received as a result of solicitations for Vaults, Vault Tops and Vault Extensions, IFB #04-025; and

WHEREAS, the City has rejected the bids due to the lowest responsive bid being over budget;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the bids received on IFB #04-025 be rejected.

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 declared repealed.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 129 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE AND SALUTE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE LADIES SOFTBALL TEAM OF CENTENARY COLLEGE AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Centenary College is the smallest Division I school in the nation; and

WHEREAS, the Centenary Ladies softball team finished the 2003 - 2004 season with a 36 - 28 overall record; and

WHEREAS, Centenary Ladies softball team won the Mid-Continent Conference Tournament to earn the league’s automatic berth into the NCAA Regional Tournament in Tucson, AZ; and

WHEREAS, the NCAA bid is the first in any sport by a Centenary athletic team; and

WHEREAS, while the Centenary Ladies softball team has many outstanding players, all of whom made important contributions to the team’s success, the following players excelled individually in the 2003 - 2004 season:

First Team All Mid-Continent Conference Team Members: Cheyenne Daries, Jordan Lansdale, Micah Rhode, Megan Hall.

Second Team All Mid-Continent Conference Team Members

Janis Kelley and Lori Kowaleski

All Mid-Continent Tournament Players

Lauren Koehn, Lauren Brownlee, Lori Kowaleski, Jordan Lansdale, Cheyenne Daries

WHEREAS, Cheyenne Daries was selected M.V.P. and Pitcher of the Year for the Mid-Continent Tournament.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the City Council congratulates and salutes the accomplishments of the Ladies Softball Team of Centenary College along with Head Coach Mark Montgomery and Assistant Coach Allison McNulty for receiving an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament due to winning the Mid-Continent Conference Tournament, and for the many other successes the team has enjoyed in the 2003 - 2004 season.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council wishes the Ladies the best of luck and every success in their future endeavors.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be executed in duplicate originals and one original shall be presented to Centenary Ladies Softball Coach Mark Montgomery and an original shall be filed in perpetuity in the Office of the Clerk of Council for the City of Shreveport.

/s/ Thomas G. Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/ Calvin Ben Lester, Jr., District A /s/ R.M. "Monty" Walford, District B

/s/ Michael "Mike" Gibson, District D /s/ Jeffery "Jeff" A. Hogan, District E

/s/ James Edward Green, District F /s/ Theron J. Jackson, District G

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Green passed by the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Hogan, and Green. 5. Nays: None. Out of the Chamber: Councilmen Lester and Jackson. 2.

RESOLUTION NO. 130 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION TO DECLARE AND RECOGNIZE THE MONTH OF MAY, 2004 AS "NATIONAL MILITARY APPRECIATION MONTH" AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has a long standing tradition of citizens serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, with many giving their lives in defense of this country; and

WHEREAS, of the many National Guard and Reservists activated for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and "Operation Enduring Freedom," many call the City of Shreveport home, and will be activated for at least a year in service to country; andWHEREAS, the contributions and sacrifices of military personnel from the City of Shreveport are vital to maintaining America’s freedoms and way of life; and

WHEREAS, it is crucial to raise awareness of the sacrifices that these brave men and women in uniform have made in the past and continue to make in order to support the Constitution and to preserve the liberties that enrich this great nation; and

WHEREAS, it is important to recognize the sacrifices, support and dedication of the families of these men and women who serve; and

WHEREAS, it is important to instill in the youth of the City of Shreveport the significance of the contributions and the relevance of the history of our great nation that members of the United States Armed Forces have made in securing and protecting the freedoms that United States citizens continue to enjoy today; and

WHEREAS, our volunteer driven force makes it essential that the future leaders of Shreveport and the nation understand the military’s history and traditions, including the contributions and sacrifices of those who have participated in military actions; and

WHEREAS, many citizens of the City of Shreveport are retired from Active Duty in the Armed Forces of the United States, and also deserve our gratitude and appreciation for their service to Country, and

WHEREAS, the citizens of Shreveport recognize the importance of maintaining a strong, equipped, well-educated, and well-trained military to safeguard freedoms, humanitarianism, and peacekeeping efforts around the world; and

WHEREAS, the month of May was selected for this display of patriotism because during this month we celebrate Victory in Europe [VE] Day, Military Spouse Day, Loyalty Day, Armed Forces Day/Week, National Day of Prayer, and Memorial Day; and

WHEREAS, in 1999, the United States Senate passed a resolution designating the month of May, as "National Military Appreciation Month" and called upon the President to issue each year a proclamation designating May as "National Military Appreciation Month," calling on the people of the United States to honor the dedicated service provided by the members of the United States Armed Forces.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Mayor and the City Council of Shreveport declare and recognize the month of May, 2004 as: "National Military Appreciation Month".

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to encourage all citizens of the City of Shreveport to proudly fly the flag from May 1st through Flag Day June 14 as a display of pride and honor for country, for those who serve, those who have served and the families who support them; and

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

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, there were three that were added that can be voted on today. Would you like to take those up?

Councilman Carmody: Please sir. If you would read those.

RESOLUTION NO. 131 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION TO REQUEST AN OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport (the City) has created the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel Authority (the Authority), as authorized by the Louisiana Public Trust Act (RS 9:2341-2347); and

WHEREAS, the Authority was created "for Economic Development Facilities and Activities" in connection with the construction of a $50 million hotel to complement Shreveport’s new convention center; and

WHEREAS, the hotel will be partly financed with bonds issued by the Authority; and

WHEREAS, the City and the Authority have also secured $12,000,000 in state-funded capital outlay funds for this project as provided for in the attached Cooperative Endeavor; and

WHEREAS, if the bonds and the capital outlay funds do not equal the construction cost of the hotel, the financing plan provides for the City to guarantee the short fall (the gap); and

WHEREAS, the Office of the City Attorney has opined that the Louisiana Public Trust Act exempts economic development facilities built by Public Trusts from the provisions of the Public Bid Law, and that the hotel is an economic development facility; and

WHEREAS, an opinion is needed from the Attorney General of Louisiana as set forth below.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened, that an opinion is requested from the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana which addresses and answers the following:

(1) Whether the insertion of state capital outlay funds into the hotel project’s construction budget and/or the City’s guarantee of any gap, require the Authority to bid the project in accordance with the Public Bid Law? If so,

(2) Can the Authority construct the hotel in stages so that the phase of the project that is built with the proceeds from the bonds issued by the authority will not be subject to the Public Bid Law?

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

Read by title an as motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green for adoption.

Councilman Gibson: I want to thank the author of the bill. I also want to state for the record that Attorney General Opinions are opinions. That when it comes down to it I think our City Attorney would agree, that any time we ask for an Attorney General Opinion, that I think that’s always challenged or can be challenged in court. Some people lose site of that, even in the industry that I represent, think that sometimes the Attorney General’s Opinion is going to be the final say on things, but I think that this has a lot of merit and am in support of it. Thank you Mr. Chair.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 132 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION CREATING THE CONVENTION CENTER COMPLEX LOCAL AND MINORITY PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE TO MONITOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE SHREVEPORT CONVENTION CENTER PROJECT AND THE SHREVEPORT CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL PROJECT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable to have a committee of citizens to receive and review reports concerning the construction and operation of the Convention Center and the Convention Center Hotel, and to make recommendations to the City Council, the Mayor and his administration, the Convention Center Hotel Authority, and the Agents who will construct and operate the Convention Center and the Convention Center Hotel to insure the maximum participation possible by local and minority persons and disadvantaged businesses in the construction and operation of these facilities.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Convention Center Complex Local and Minority Committee is established to receive and review reports concerning the construction and operation of the Convention Center and the Convention Center Hotel, and to make recommendations to the City Council, The Mayor and his administration, the Convention Center Hotel Authority and the Agents who will construct and operate the Convention Center and the Convention Center Hotel to insure the maximum participation possible by local and minority persons and the disadvantaged businesses in the construction and operation of these facilities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Local and minority Committee for the Convention Center and the Convention Center Hotel shall consist of eight members one of whom shall be Assistant Chief Administrative Officer for the Fair Share Office the other members shall be selected, one each, by the following entities:

S Minority Construction Association

S Associated General Contractors (AGC)

S Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce

S Shreveport African-American Chamber of Commerce

S Shreveport Bar Association

S Shreveport-Bossier Black Lawyers Association

S National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

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 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, including Resolution No. 57 of 2003.

Read by title and as motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green for adoption.

Councilman Walford: Can I address this directly to Mr. Lester?

Councilman Carmody: Yes, he’s got the answer. That would be fine.

Councilman Walford: Didn’t we already do this?

Councilman Lester: We did.

Councilman Walford: Would you just real quickly- - - -? I think I know the difference, but how about just telling me the difference in this one and what we did.

Councilman Lester: The five dollar answer is the difference between this and what we did is this changes the committee and allows people that may (inaudible) with the Convention Center or the Convention Center Hotel to be a part of that process. One of the problems that we had was, the previous legislation said you cannot attempt to work with the Convention Center Hotel or Convention Center Complex and be a part of the committee. And most of the people basically backed off because they believed that there was going to be a conflict. So, this would allow the participation that we need.

Councilman Walford: So if I read it right, you just took out that prohibition?

Councilman Lester: That’s all we did. That’s the only difference.

Motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, and Jackson. 6. Nays: Councilman Hogan. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 133 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE EFFECTS OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10 RELATIVE TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON JUNE 11, 12, AND 13, 2004 RELATIVE TO DISPENSING, SALE AND/OR CONSUMPTION OF LOW ALCOHOLIC CONTENT BEVERAGES AT 2010 NORTH MARKET AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Technical College, Shreveport - Bossier intends to sponsor the All-Bike Extravaganza fund raising activity on June 11, 12, and 13, 2004 at the Louisiana Technical College campus on 2010 North Market; and

WHEREAS, the proceeds of the event will benefit the Skills USA Student Competitors; and

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Technical College, Shreveport - Bossier intends to dispense and allow the sale and consumption of low content alcoholic beverages at the Louisiana Technical College campus parking lot located at 2010 North Market during its event; and

WHEREAS, certain provisions of Chapter 10 of the Code of Ordinances prohibits the sale, consumption, dispensing or otherwise of alcoholic beverages in and on public places, including streets and sidewalks, unless specifically authorized by the city council or the zoning board of appeals; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of this resolution would allow the Louisiana Technical College, Shreveport - Bossier to dispense and sale and its patrons to purchase and consume low alcoholic content alcoholic beverages on the campus parking lot at 2010 North Market during the event.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that Section 10-185 (a) is hereby suspended on June 11, 12, and 13, 2004 at 2010 North Market for the All-Bike Extravaganza fund raiser to benefit the Skills USA Student Competitors, to allow for the dispensing, sale, and consumption of low alcoholic content beverages on the campus of the Louisiana Technical College, Shreveport - Bossier.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other applicable provisions of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances shall remain in full force and effect.

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

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS

1. Resolution No. 127 of 2004: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a release for surface damages associated with the drilling of four oil and gas wells located at the City of Shreveport’s Sludge Field location along the Harts Island Road, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 128 of 2004: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a right of entry agreement with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Gibson to Introduce Resolutions 127 and 128 of 2004 to lay over until the June 8, 2004, meeting. Motion Approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTIONS OF ORDINANCES

1. Ordinance No. 69 of 2004: An ordinance to create and establish a no parking zone between the hours of 8:00 a. m. and5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday on either side of the 500 block of Forest Avenue and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

1. Ordinance No. 70 of 2004: An ordinance to formally name a street that has commonly been referred to as 1L Westwood Park to Praise Temple Place, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto:

1. Ordinance No. 71 of 2004: An ordinance to amend certain provisions of Section 72-5(c) and to add Section 72-5(g) to the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to Sexually Oriented Businesses and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

1. Ordinance No. 72 of 2004: An ordinance to amend certain provisions of Section 50-134 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to miscellaneous offenses and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

1. Ordinance No. 73 of 2004: An ordinance amending the 2004 General Fund Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

1. Ordinance No. 74 of 2004: An ordinance amending the 2004 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Ordinance No. 75 of 2004: An ordinance amending the 2004 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

1. Ordinance No. 76 of 2004: TWENTY SECOND 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 not to exceed $13,000,000 principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2004 Refunding Series B, 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.

Read by title and as motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to Introduce Ordinances 69 through 76 of 2004 to lay over until the June 8, 2004, meeting. Motion Approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Walford, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE:

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I believe we want to go to No. 61.

Councilman Carmody: Yes sir, if I remember correctly, that would be first.

1. Ordinance No. 61 of 2004: An ordinance amending the 2004 General Fund Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Green for adoption.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on 61, there are at least two amendments.

Councilman Carmody: I have a 1, 2A and a 2B on my electronic agenda.

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct and it depends on what happens to 1 as to whether you would go with 2A or 2B.

Councilman Carmody: Alright, then I guess we should take up 1 first. Could I ask you to read the amendment please.

Having passed first reading on May 11, 2004 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption. The Clerk read the following amendments:

Amendment No. 1

By Councilman Theron Jackson

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Police Department

Decrease Personal Services by $250,000

SPAR Department

Increase Personal Services by $50,000

Increase Contractual Services by $200,000

Mr. Thompson: This amendment would allow the SPAR Department to provide swimming programs, concerts, and other recreational activities for young people throughout the City during the summer months. By using $250,000 of the original $750,000. If this amendment is adopted and the other amendments are defeated and the ordinance is adopted as amended, the Police Department would get an additional $500,000, not $750,000 and SPAR would get an additional $250,000.

Councilman Carmody: I believe your motions were withdrawn and we were reading the amendments. I will entertain a motion on the amendment.

Motion by Councilman Jackson and seconded by Gibson for adoption of Amendment No. 1.

Councilman Jackson: I want to encourage – One of the things that’s happened a few weeks ago as many of you know that we had an incident that went national on the corner of Greenwood Road and Jewella. And after that some Councilmen, I have two meetings and some of the Councilmen came to the first meeting that we had at Louisiana State Exhibit Museum and had citizens to come out and express their opinions. One of the things that they wanted to know is what we were going to do as a City. Because that’s in my district, I tried to take the responsibility of coming up with some options that were not going to be one time shots in the arm, but something that can be consistently applied across the width and breath of the summer, three months if you will. I since have had conversations and have had a second meeting with some of the people who are out on that corner during those weekends and younger people and that second meeting, there was probably about 105 people who were there. The Chief, representatives from SPAR and others from the City. When folks were talking about what they looked to do, what they liked to do and those kinds of things subsequent to that, had a meeting with Gary Norman from SPAR. Two private citizens who work in entertainment and radio in this area and have the pulse of some of the young people, we tried to get together to come up with some ideas. One of the things that I said that I thought would help is if we would not invest from a public perspective, but also leverage a public investment against a private investment and work with the private sector to provide some things for this community. We since have gotten together. One of the things you heard talked about today, Councilman Walford had offered, I think of these amendments will be his as well. His amendment was for the pool and Valencia, I believe it was and, a couple of weeks ago, I talked with him about inculcating his concerns into this amendment as well. So it in fact as the Clerk has read has money for pools in there as well as money for activities throughout the course of the summer. A series of events throughout the course of the summer, that money will be moved to SPAR’s budget for the sole purpose of helping to create those events and to make sure that we have appropriate personnel for those events and $50,000 of that money was in fact from personnel, so I recognize there needs to be people at SPAR who will probably have to work overtime, on the weekends who otherwise would not - - to aid, not damaging the current SPAR budget and in light of this discussion today, there may be some opportunities for part-time temporary help for them as well, that young people could get involved with through SPAR in those activities and involved in those events. Don’t know, but I think it’s something certainly worth talking about. I talked with Councilman Gibson, because obviously, it’s his legislation that I have amended and he has pledged his support as well as he has shown today by seconding his motion. I would ask the Councilmen if you would to help us take care of this problem. Because we talk about the problem, but no body has presented a plan. It’s summertime. Summertime is upon us. We need something. And if we don’t have something to do, I just didn’t want to be the Councilman who not only represents that district, but as a Councilman who is concerned, to not bring anything to this council and not have any ideas and any plans and that’s why we’ve engaged City Employee, Directors Gary Norman, and even the Chief of Police as well in these deliberations to make sure first that they made sense, and secondly that they would be worthy of our investment. And I would certainly urge your support as we look to take care. It won’t be the panacea for all of the difference that can be made, but it goes a long way in my opinion in trying to move toward the right direction in investing in the young people and youth services in this community. So thank you Mr. Chairman.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilmen Walford and Carmody. 2. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

Mr. Thompson: Amendment 2A, this amendment to allow the SPAR Department to open Valencia Pool for the 2004 swimming season. Amendment No. 1 has been adopted and if this amendment is adopted and the ordinance is adopted as amended, the Police Department will get an additional $250,000 not $500,000 and SPAR will get $250,000 plus $33,500.

Amendment No. 2A

By Councilman Monty Walford

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Revenues):

Increase Miscellaneous Revenues by $7,300

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

General Government

Increase Transfer to Retained Risk by $500,000

Decrease Operating Reserves by $276,200

Police Department

Decrease Personal Services by $250,000

SPAR Department

Increase Personal Services by $7,300

Increase Material and Supplies by $22,200

Increase Contractual Services by $4,000

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Hogan for adoption of Amendment No. 2A.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, if I’m reading this right, if we’ve already adopted one amendment that spoke to a significant portion of this, we would only be doing two things as I appreciate it, which would be adding an additional $33,000 and reducing what we give to the Police by half.

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct.

Councilman Jackson: And voting for this amendment, that’s in effect what would happen. Is that correct?

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct.

Councilman Walford: That’s basically correct and I think before we throw $500,000 out at the Police, I really think we should call the Chief up. We’re half way through the year and I’d like to hear his position. Chief, I know you’ve been listening over there, even though we couldn’t see you hidden over there. Basically my amendment reduces the additional monies to the Police Department to $250,000 at this time. Can you address $250, versus $500,000 versus $750,000 and cover all your bases here for us?

Chief Campbell: If I could impose for about a ten minute presentation and answer all the questions at the end.

Councilman Walford: I certainly would yield all the remainder of my time to you.

Chief Campbell: Also you’re being given a handout package. I would ask you to hold questions, make notes and I would like to respond to any questions at the end of the presentation. This is gonna be kinda the good, the bad and the ugly. I’m gonna start off with the ugly.

The ugly is the crime statistics so far this year and it’s a little bit hard to read. I’ll hit the high points. You look at your grand total down on the right hand corner. We’ve got an 18% increase in (inaudible) crimes during the first four months of the year. The vital crime index is at 9% and while property crimes is at 19%, with an overall increase of 18%. If you look at some of the findings, I want to just take a minute to explain one of the biggest spikes as you can see on there are the armed robbery numbers. And just give you an idea of what we’ve been doing and must look first at the 10 year robbery trend. As you can see, it’s not unusual to have spikes or peaks and valleys in the robbery trend over time. If you look at the next slide, we’ll show you business robberies - Jan 1^st and actually (inaudible) through May 21^st. We have a total and you can see on your slide there that you have some that are magenta color, those cases have been closed by arrest. I think there are some significant things there when you talk about it. We’ve had 83 armed robberies of businesses to date. For the year, 34 of those have been closed by arrest. Which gives basically about 41% SPD clearance rate, closed by arrest. When your southern region averages about 26%, your national average is about 22%. Also when you’re talking about armed robberies, it’s a serial crime. Once an individual gets out, and starts those, they keep committing them until we catch ‘em. Unfortunately, sometimes we seem to have a revolving door and you run the criminal through the system, they get a little bit smarter the next time they come out.

Basic points of interest in talking about some of the people that we have arrested this year. In particular, those that we’ve charged with anywhere from seven to nine business burglaries for one person. Two of those individuals were either on probation or parole. And the other had a fairly lengthy criminal history. So, these people that we deal with all the time. And it may also explain some of the peaks and valleys that we have in the ten year trend. If you’ll look also some of the things that we’re doing in regards to - - -

Councilman Carmody: Chief, could I ask Sgt Shaw to kinda keep up with you as we - - -I can read in this light and I’m kinda having a difficult time- - .

Chief Campbell: Slow down just a little bit?

Councilman Carmody: No sir, just make sure that we (inaudible) enough of where we are so that I can pick it up here, I’d appreciate it.

Chief Campbell: And also during the same time period, I think a significant interest is our Project Safe Neighborhood and what we’ve been able to do with that since the first of the year. And just to recap what Project Safe Neighborhood is, it’s taking individuals who actually used a firearm in the commission of a crime and through coordination with the District Attorney’s office and the U. S. Attorney’s office, prosecute those cases so that they get maximum exposure. To date, since the inception of the program about October when we began, we had 51 cases that had been adopted by the U. S. Attorney’s office for Project Safe Neighborhood and upon conviction or adjudication, those individuals get a maximum sentence of five years.

Also there’s been questions raised about the arrest rate. We are down basically about 6%, but as we get a little bit further into the presentation, I think you can see some of the things that might be affecting that arrest rate. Also, our Narcotics bureau for this year, 2004 to date compared to 2003 of last year has had a 70% increase from 142 to 241.

And at this time, I’d like to talk to or address the manpower issue. And I think it will show you a little bit about or explain some of the decreases in arrests. We have 515 authorized personnel. Currently, we have 503 assigned personnel. That’s what we’re paying for. 29 of those are in recruit training at the academy, so we’re not receiving any police service from them. We have 12 on the extended military leave, we’re not receiving any police service from them. We have 12 personnel vacancies and we have three on terminal leave, which will increase our personnel vacancies as we get a little bit later into the year. Which is 56 total persons that we don’t have. Which is a 10.87 or roughly 11% of our workforce. And I think if you look at the 11% reduction in manpower in the 6%, I think we’re still doing a pretty good task of holding people accountable out there on the street. Obviously, it does cause us some problems. And if you allow, we’ll go into just a little bit about the (inaudible) study. Kind of give you a – and this is a preliminary study, we’ll have the file in July. But it kinda gives you a real clear picture of where we are and what we’re doing. Basically it boils down to a couple of questions. How fast your patrol units are responding to calls for service and different priorities. Generally, across the country, it’s pretty much accepted at about a seven minute response time for priority 1 calls is acceptable. We’re running at about 7.4 % based on the initial part of the study. Where we’re suffering is how much proactive patrol time should the average patrol unit have to work on neighborhood problems. Generally speaking it’s accepted pretty much consensus across the country, that time should be about 33%. I think you will find in actuality, we’re doing about 20% less.

Councilman Carmody: Excuse me for interrupting you sir, I believe we’ve lost our quorum. If I could ask Sharon to – and I think Councilman Green, I’m not sure he didn’t have a meeting at his office. Maybe we need to let those –

Councilman Jackson: He can still go, we’re not voting right?

Mr. Thompson: I think that you can go on and listen.

Councilman Carmody: I just hope that everybody has the benefit of hearing the report from the Chief. Thank you. Thank you Gentlemen. Excuse me for interrupting you Chief.

Chief Campbell: The second policy question again is how much proactive time. I’ve generally said that across the country, about a third of the Officer’s time, I think you’ll see here in just a minute when we show a couple of other slides where we have the problem. And again, how many patrol officers should be free on average to promote officer safety.

If you will, patrol staffing assessment and this is pretty much again accepted (inaudible) different organizations, some work a little bit different, but basically it takes a patrol officers day and splits into thirds. You have calls for service which should take up about 33% of the officer’s time. We have proactive time and when we talk about proactive time, we’re talking about being in a neighborhood doing proactive patrols, directed patrols, those things to deter crime in the neighborhood. And then finally about a third of your time directed to administrative time. Which is the time it takes to write reports, handle prisoners and those type things there. The basic information from the study and I gave you a sheet there and I’m gonna try to work you through, because it can be a little bit confusing. I would also ask that (inaudible) document has sensitive material, because it exposes a pretty good (inaudible). And certainly we don’t need any more information than is already out there about some of the issues that we have. But if you take the top line, I’ll try to explain this to you. During the study, City-wide, if you look at the time period from 0700 to 1059. It shows that we fielded about 23.8 units. To reach a seven minute response time, it would require 22 units. And we’re about 7.4 minutes and that’s really not an issue. We’re answering the calls. What we’re having the problem with is the proactive time. If you go over and look at the proactive time, and to gain just a 30% level your staffing level would be and units fielded would be roughly 30 for that particular time period. Generally speaking, if you look at what we fielded and what we’re doing is less than 20%. That changes with the time of the day. But if you look at all periods of the day, generally we’re below 20% and in some time periods, we’re around 10%. So, you can see some of the problems that we have in doing proactive preventative patrol measures. And I think also as you go through looking at some of the surveys that we’ve done and everybody’s heard the fact, that the issue is, you never see any Police units in the neighborhoods. Well, that’s why. Answering calls and the number of units that we have available. And I can tell you that, that’s a pretty good impact. 56 officers that we don’t have out there. If you would, we’re going to move over now to what’s available with the different monies that have been suggested.

If you look at the overtime rate of an officer on hire backs, about $32-42 an hour. An eight hour shift cost you roughly $260, for three shifts, it’d run you about $778. There’s 213 days left in the year after June 1^st. To add one officer to each shift for the year, it’d be about $165,740. And then you could take it on down and look at the funding available. $250, 500, and 750(thousand) and what that would actually do to each shift on the street.

Also, another possibility for using overtime funding would be special operations, directed patrols dealing with specific problems, burglaries, armed robberies, those type things, typically an eight hour operation runs you about $2500, and if you look at the number of operations that you could do, $250,000 would give you 99. $500,000 would give you roughly 197, and $750,000 would give you roughly 296. And those are the numbers.

If you would bare with me for just one second and I want to read this because I don’t want to miss anything and it’s just a wrap up of – I know this was fast and we can talk about your questions here in a minute. I just wanted to briefly give you my wrap up.

In 1974, over 30 years ago when I joined the Shreveport Police Department, there were 393 police officers. Today, our budgeted strength of 515 police officers, a net gain of about 113, Shreveport has grown significantly in the past 30 years as well as the department’s mission. We have taken on responsibilities such as SROs, (inaudible) Cross Lake patrols, just to name a few that have eroded that net gain of officers. In the late 1980s and early ‘90s, this department experienced a similar decrease in manpower as we are currently experiencing under the Administration of Charles Gruber. Then as now, the crime stastistics are climbing. The combination of returning manpower, much effort in improvement allowed us to recover. This recovery lasted several years until 9-11 where we began seeing a slight elevation in our crime rate. After 9-11, due largely to economic conditions, revenue shortages began packing our municipal budge. The budget cuts that followed coupled with military call-ups set up the situation we now find ourselves in.

When I accepted this position as the Chief of Shreveport Police Department, I had no misconception of the problems that lay ahead. Our community was in turmoil. The community’s faith in the Shreveport Police Department was at an all time low and the department’s resources were spiraling downward as a result of the budget cuts.

Yes, I will accept responsibility and accountability for the Shreveport Police Department. I will not point fingers and I will work diligently to solve the problems as I have done over the past 11 months. The short term future will not be pretty, however help is on the way. One academy class is nearing graduation, another is gearing up to start in the fall. Equally important, the new City Jail should be open in September allowing the judicial system more flexibility to increase incarceration time of frequent misdemeanor offenders. This should impact the crime rates as well. However, as you can see from the preliminary results of the (inaudible) study, that will not totally eradicate this issue.

My recommendation is as follows: The most prudent plan is to follow through with the long term solution as recommended by the (unclear) study. If additional monies are available, they would be much appreciated, as we are stretched as tight as a rubber band. However, I would not want them at the expense of the long term solution. Remember any short term appropriation would be like a band aid on a sucking chest wound. It would only be a short term remedy. You have my concerns, you have my recommendations. The decision is in your hand.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Chief.

Councilman Walford: Well, I think that basically answered the questions. I think that it was very helpful and I guess the one question I would have Chief, is we’re seeing all these overtime numbers, do we have the officers available that want to work those overtime shifts?

Chief Campbell: That was another question that came up. We did a brief quick study. We had 66 people sign up and I’m sure there are more. I think we can fund some of the issues that we have.

Councilman Walford: At what level?

Chief Campbell: As far as the manpower.

Councilman Walford: At what level could it be funded? Could it be manned if it were funded?

Chief Campbell: We would have to look at several different things that depending on the level that it was funded, that you know it would be, whether it we’d do a combination of special operations or whether we’d do a combination of special operations and time to do hire backs. Pretty much, if it’s limited to $250,000 it would probably all be directed at the special operations.

Councilman Gibson: Chief, I really appreciate the information. I appreciate the staff’s efforts in putting all this together, because it enlightens a lot of different things. I bring- - - go down to the last page that really stuck out. Before I move to that last page on the special operations side, there was a story in the Shreveport Times, I think two Mondays, it was a great story on what those special operations are doing out there in high crime areas. I think if I recall, also Channel 12 reported that, I guess they got that information from you that, that’s having about a 46% affect in terms of drop, in terms of crimes when those special operations go into an area is that correct?

Chief Campbell: That’s correct, but it’s a temporary relief.

Councilman Gibson: Again Chief, when I went down this road 75 days ago, nowhere did I think that this was implied to my colleagues, to the Mayor, to the Chief or to Chief of Police that this was short term. What I expressed was a – we’ve had 27 straight months where we’ve had crime increase of which again, you stated unequivocally, you’ve been on the job for 11 months. There has been a 25% increase in the first quarter now. I guess you’ve incorporated the April numbers or May numbers, I saw 18%. But in my district and in other districts that I’ve heard from, but in my district specifically, there has been a significant increase. Taxpayers, as my meeting with you and the Mayor a couple of Monday’s ago, I agree in 1990, I think we had an operating budget Mayor of what $16,000,000 and now we’re at $40,000,000? Nowhere in my mind in talking to my colleagues to consider this dealt with throwing money at anything. But in the short term, while you’re developing a long term plan which that’s one of the things I think why the Mayor saw the quality of law enforcement leader that you are, that you’re gonna come before us with a long term solution. But this is a short term issue. And I look at that 197 operations at $500,000, my question is if Southern Hills and Cedar Grove and other areas in the City have high crime rates, the City Council can work with you to identify that to bring those special operations out there to address some of the short term needs that are out there in those particular areas. Is that correct?

Chief Campbell: That is correct and generally, we monitor that information as well and identify them through our crime analysis.

Councilman Gibson: I understand that and again, we’re not trying to supersede or micro-manage this thing, but the fact being, while you’re developing the long range planning, I have to assume and let me just don’t make the assumption, you are going to bring that long range plan or try to target this fall budgetary process?

Chief Campbell: Yes sir, I am.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, and I’ve stated on the record that I plan on and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same thing to stand toe to toe with you and the Mayor, shoulder to shoulder to find whatever resources. Because again, I think we heard today from Mr. Wills and other people in this City. What are the priorities of this City? I think I know what your priority is as the leader of the Shreveport Police Department and I applaud that effort by getting some additional data to be able to come to the table with the long range plan. I applaud the Mayor of Shreveport for putting you in that position. But right now, when I talk to constituents of my district and Mr. And Mrs. Carlson in Spring Lake called me and this is one of numerous phone calls to where they see both short term and long term. (inaudible) have to go and buy pistols to carry in there cars to go from there house to the grocery store that trend has continued to be an issue or feedback coming back to me that relates back to the statistical information that has accumulated which you have on page 1. But again you inherited this issue you made that clear but I think that there is a great opportunity here for this City Council to not put a band-aid over a hemorrhage, because again these crime statistics are real, they are affecting us right now, I can’t look my constituents in the eye gentlemen, and say let’s wait for a long range plan because you are stretched like a band-aid as you said. And I think that it is imperative that we look at that $500 hundred thousand dollar level to address both the combination of special operation, and also you stated in the Shreveport Times or in some interview that I saw, where they are still going to be some on going issues. I think that Councilman Jackson has one of the combinations for one of the Jewella, Greenwood area, but you also said that you would pay approximately $2500 for a special-op at eight hours time frame throughout the summer. Did I miss read that in an article?

Chief Campbell: That’s what cost us. Generally speaking we have done that and we do that for several weeks and then monitor the situation to see if it is needed and go from there. Generally last year it went from that location down to the Riverfront, so generally speaking we have those operations that we have to ponder around here.

Councilman Gibson: But that money could be put to good use right now while you are developing a long range plan.

Chief Campbell: And again my position, as I told you I want to commitment for the long term, and any monies has to come with that commitment.

Councilman Gibson: Well let me ask you this question? If this was a short term plan for a long range problem, just because we pass this our continents aren’t going to quit, there worries are not going to go away, because once the money runs out there is going to be continued problems right?

Chief Campbell: That’s right, and all I am asking is that the Council support for the long term cause that is what it is going to take.

Councilman Gibson: Well I mean again I have stated on record and the Shreveport Times my support of your long range plan and I had not even seen it. But the fact is that plan is going to be something that is been badly needed for a number of years, and again the administration worked with the past City Council to get a consultant to do this manpower study which started, what two years ago, two in a half years ago, Mayor? And obviously we are working toward a long range plan but crime- the criminals aren’t standing or sitting on their hands waiting for a long range plan. And again we have had some serious issues, gun fire downtown, shooting out windows downtown, going through Broadmoor shooting out thirty to fifty car windows, working down to my district. We have got a reporter over here that took some things, taking some matters into his own hands which again we appreciate that but again, Chief that is not your problem. It is a Police presence issue, and I have got to say unequivocally that I am asking my colleagues to support the $500,000 level to address the short term needs in anticipation of a long range plan, that will focus on a lot of those issues. If you are producing the kind of results that say you are, and I have no doubt, if we are reducing crime by 46% by using special operation, to me that is not throwing money an issue, that’s a wise investment to protect our neighborhood, protect the individuals that live in the neighborhood and the businesses. I can assure you I hate to go to Mr. Earnest right now, at Earnest’s Restaurant and say the short term solution is to make sure that you get a off duty Police Officer to protect your business. I mean other businesses are going to have to do the same thing and be able to look at a long range plan. And that is why I think it is important that this council support the $500,000 for a 197 numbers of operation and then if you – if it is not a hundred and ninety-seven you have the discretion to be able to use it in a combination that you see fit of which that is why the Mayor saw fit to appoint you to that particular position to address. I have a lot of issues that are going to come your way if the money is there to ask for some of those operation in some of the areas that you have targeted in my districts, that are high crime areas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, Mr. Gibson. Any other questions or comments for the Chief? Hearing none we are now considering amendment 2 A. I’m sorry I did have one comment gentlemen.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Hightower: We don’t have an issue, with the $500,000 again, as long the council has a commitment and I think six weeks ago we said the same thing, that the chief was working on a long range plan and we have to be cognizant of it. We have to be able to step up the pace and be able to fund it in the fall for 2005 and I think you will be ready to go and we will have academy classes those 29 policemen ready to go to work and other class ready to go hopefully some called up officers back. So I think we will start seeing a regrouping fairly quickly, one thing that we do have an issue on and it is not so much the amount of money but it is where the money comes from. Mr. Dark has been working on the budget to figure out how we are going to be able to juggle to make this happen for the rest of the year and he thinks he has a way to do it with one. We want to at least ask the council to not take money out the Retain Risk fund but to move it out of General Fund.

Mr. Dark: If I could Mr. Chairman, the biggest concern we have about what’s left as if you pass the ordinance as it is currently mended with amendment one only, is we are taking a half million dollars out of the Retain Risk Fund, or out of what General Funds gives to Retain Risk, which in affect does the same thing. If it passes in the current form we are going to have to a contribution for this year that is down to about $4.2 million. Last year was a fairly good year and we ended up paying out $2.5 million more than that. We just think that it is not good business to be hitting that fund we actually are more comfortable with you saying as a council, if you decide that this is so important that you want to do it mid-year either make something that we are currently doing go away or take the money out of the operating service. In Mr. Walford’s amendment in affect we have done that the$250 thousand that he is proposing to fund is in fact coming out of the General Fund operating reserve as opposed to the Retain Risk Fund, as is the money for the Valencia swimming pool. That is our biggest problem with this thing is that we really feel like the more you hit – the tendency to Retain Risk is a big blob of money sitting out there that we can go tap whenever we have got a need, is one we discourage very, very, strongly because this fund eats us alive every year. What we have to contribute to for claims is the reason that we are having to do some things to the General Fund Budget and an ordinance that is on first reading today, has been the problem with our fund balance most of the time that I have been here, because those expenses are not predicted. Those of you who are on the Risk Management Committee have to understand because you have been listening to it that we have a number of high profile potentially expensive cases out there. And to make the cut from here is something that we can not support. If you choose to do a bigger number frankly and do that operating reserve, at least that is a policy call that you make. If you choose to do it in the amount that it is in amendment 2 A that is a policy call you make. We just would prefer very strongly that the policy that you make, that you do not fund any new mid-year expense, whether it be this or anything else worthy from the risk fund. Thank you.

Councilman Carmody: Can I make one quick question? In observation about 2 A I care deeply about making sure the police have the resources that they got to have in order to protect citizens of this community. In the same way I feel for Mr. Wills in Stoner Hill for trying to open a pool but my question is this and maybe Mr. Dark you would be the right person to help answer it I know that the administration say it is a policy decision. But if we are going to open one pool for Valencia I think that we need to actually fund the opening of Fairgrounds, as well as Anderson Island. I don’t think that right now that the city has the ability to take $4 00,000to do Hattie Perry, as I appreciate it that it would not be feasible to get this —?

Mr. Dark: Mr. Chairman I believe the intention of Mr. Jackson’s amendment is that the other two pools be open. That is certainly the understanding that Mr. Norman has, not Hattie Perry but the other two.

Councilman Carmody: But out of the General Fund.

Mr. Dark: Right. Well actually that’s the $250 thousand from Riverfront that was part of Mr. Gibson original package has stayed in and in affect that’s what we are using to do the amendment that passed 1 A. You know Riverfront is not a bottomless pit either, but I think that everybody understands where that one is right now. So we are not going to argue against that.

Councilman Carmody: I think that we are decreasing what our projection where to that today.

Mr. Dark: And we in fact are, we will still have about a $3.5 million dollar reserve, if that ordinance passes and this ordinance passes, but the risk one has been such a big number that we can not support taking money from that for this we would rather you look it straight up and decide that it is a General Fund expense.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, Mr. Dark for the explanation. Mr. Walford.

Councilman Walford: I really think that adopting my amendment would be the prudent thing to do I understand that Mr. Gibson would like to have more money and I certainly would like to put more money in Police, but this funds a great deal of police activity. It funds ninety-nine special operations or I am sorry I can’t break it down to how many hours in additional officers days but we can always come back with another budget amendment, if the Chief needs the additional money and we feel it is necessary but I think this would be a very prudent way to go, and I would urge my colleagues to adopt this.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, Mr. Walford. Mr. Gibson I will come back to you.

Councilman Gibson: I will defer to Mr. Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I guess my question becomes about the amount of money that we are talking about. If I hear Mr. Dark correctly their issue is not with the amount of money, their issue is with where the money is coming from. And if I hear the Mayor correct and the Chief their issue was not so much about the money, as much as having a long term commitment on behalf of the Council my hope is that this vote will represent what can be called a long term commitment in the sense that I think our vote ought to be consistent you know it would be difficult to say give the Police $500,000 in June and then come back in December and say take $50 million away from them. And I am being facetious but I think that we need to consistently continue to go in a way of public safety, continue to be a priority. What I am saying is that you know, I am not going to vote today saying all right I am voting today and you got this you got this commitment. What I’m saying is I think we ought to be consistent and I think what the viewing cry of this vote I hope will say, we will continue to keep public safety as a priority. So whatever that long term plan – cause I am not prepared today to say whatever the long term plan is I am checking off on it cause you can say we need fifty-five elephants and I am saying that we have already made a commitment, No! You got my commitment that we would consistently keep public safety a priority, and to the extent that we could say whatever the cost may be. So you know that I am suggesting that, my question is. If in fact that could this, Mr. Chairman if in fact Councilman Gibson would concede to do so if you change or amend this to – so that this money that he is requesting comes from the General Fund or the Operating Reserve as opposed to the Retain Risk, would that be palatable – well I guess I am not asking you to reveal how you are going to vote, but if that is in fact possible then Mr. Gibson will concede to that then we still can get what we need taken care of.

Councilman Gibson: I don’t have a problem with that.

Mr Dark: And the only caveat I like to give y’all is that the ordinance that you have on first reading now is already going to decrease the reserve from $10.2 million down to about $9.7. If you do this you are going to cut $276 or $526 depending on what level you are fund it, and that is a policy call, the smaller that number is the less money we have starting next year, the less money we have to do the stuff he is gonna wanna do and y’all are gonna wanna do, spend it now or spend it later take your choice.

Councilman Gibson: Well Mr. Dark I take exception, this is public safety that we are talking about here, both short term and long term, and I appreciate where you are coming from but we got an immediate problem right now. If we were talking 2% or 3% increases in crime then we got twenty-five or eighteen to twenty-five depending on how you look at. First quarter was 25% and I have expressed my concerns to both the Mayor and the Chief about where we are going to get some additional presence out there and again special-op seems to be one of those biggest returns on investment, with 46% average reduction of crime out there and then again we are not even getting into some of the pro-active sides that you alluded to earlier, that are still a major concern with a lot of people, I think in the terms of Police presence in the neighborhoods.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chair.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, Mr. Gibson. Mr. Lester.

Councilman Lester: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, let me ask this question? If we agree or agree on the amount of whether it be $500,000 or $250,000. If we agree to move forward with this particular piece of legislation and if the concern is taking the money from Retain Risk. Would we not be forestalled to vote for this now take the money from Retain Risk, at the next council meeting go over an amendment to move the money from another source to this particular source so that we can switch things around? I mean at the end of the day we are talking about one amount of money, moving it from one particular pot to another I think the issue as I appreciate it if the issue is where the money comes from and if we believe that there is an immediate need to deal with it now, why couldn’t we just vote for this and allow the Chief to start using, and have access to those resources now, and at our next council meeting offer up the amendments required to move the money from the place where we don’t like from to the place where we want it from and move forward from there?

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman

Mr. Dark: Let me give you an easier way?

Councilman Carmody: Excuse me, Mr. Dark one second sir.

Mr. Thompson: I think we are about to say the same thing.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, Mr. Dark.

Mr. Dark: Go ahead Art, I am curious where you going here.

Mr. Thompson: If you wanted to do it today then could just do a substitute 2A, and Mr. Dark has all ready marked it up so that we could accomplish what you want to accomplish, with the substitute 2A.

Mr. Dark: And all that one does is if you are looking at 2A somewhere, 2A right now has two lines that we have to change. Under Police, instead of decreasing personal services by 250 which would have netted it from 500 down to 250 that line would just simply go away. The Operating Reserve line would change from 276,200 to 526,200 and you have got your 500,000 it is not out of Retain Risk you just hit reserve. If that is what this council wants to do as far as amount that is the simplest way to accomplish this?

Councilman Lester: Question?

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Lester.

Councilman Lester: Thank you. Would this, with you’re or with the change that we are talking about into A, how much would the bottom line be in terms of providing to the Police department?

Mr. Dark: $500,000.

Councilman Lester: It would be 500,000 not 250?

Mr. Dark: Yes sir.

Councilman Lester: And this is the amended 2A?

Mr. Thompson: Substitute 2A.

Councilman Lester: Substitute 2A.

Mr. Dark: See what you have, you have – you started this ordinance with adding $750 thousand dollars to the Police.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Mr. Dark: Mr. Jackson Amendment No.1 reduce that from 750 to 500.

Mr. Dark: Had 2A passed like it was it was going to decrease that 250 more, if you take that line out it stays at the 750, excuse me at the 500 where it is now, if you were to vote as amended.

Councilman Lester: And that would be the 2A Substitute.

Mr. Dark: Which I believe Mr. Thompson has the written version of it. It is what I explained.

Councilman Lester: Okay.

Mr. Dark: Thank you.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: Can I see it?

Councilman Carmody: Could you provide that for Mr. Lester. Mr. Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: I was hoping that they would do it yet. Mr. Chairman I also wanted to add that we could strike and I didn’t know if Councilman just needed to add something else to that substitute another deletion, because that $33,000 that he had in there that was saying for Valencia pool it is already in that. And so we can strike the $300,000 out, because it is already in the 250.

Councilman Walford: That’s what you and I – Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dark: Are you sure?

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Walford.

Councilman Jackson: Yes.

Mr. Dark: Are y’all sure about that, cause there has been some question about whether we needed to get that one again in this one? Just be sure cause you need to get SPAR what you going to give them if you expect them to open all three pools.

Councilman Carmody: Sorry, but Councilman Green is not here to help us.

Councilman Walford: So, we can’t get the hard copy, I mean the electronic of what we voted on?

Councilman Lester: Amendment No.1 gives $250,000 to SPAR. Amendment 2A substitute says 33,000 to SPAR, it would just be a matter of striking through that portion of the substitute and you would give $250,000 to SPAR. And I believe as I appreciate it that would be enough to deal with the Valencia situation as well as – which is what the original intent of Councilman Jackson legislation, if I am correct, Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: That is exactly right.

Councilman Walford: That’s the discussion that we had in the back.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dark: It might be appropriate to ask Mr. Norman if he thinks that’s appropriate, because you are going to be asking him to make this work.

Councilman Carmody: Could I ask you to come forward please sir and help us? Chief we are trying to get you some help! It’s the only way I know how to get to it.

Chief Campbell: Just like those Centenary girls, you just got to sit there and wait on it to happen.

Councilman Carmody: You just got to sit for just a second. Mr. Norman can you assist us in giving us your input on the $250,000, as I appreciate it in order to open those pools with the exception of Hattie Perry. Is that going to be enough revenue for SPAR to go ahead and facilitate the reopening of those pools.

Mr. Norman: You know I think and I have talked to Councilman Jackson, I think a lot of that would depend on how much the money is going to go in the other events that we are talking about and to what extent we are going to be involved in paying for some of the other things. I mean as the Chief has said for long term it is not what we need, but if we can get them open bare minimal the stuff we have to do is (inaudible) it would certainly help if we are going to do this you know and hopefully we want be going through this again next year.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, sir. Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, in looking at the pool expenses I want to make sure that we are clear on this when I initially put it together and I talked to Mr. Norman as well my intent was to in fact make sure that there was money for three things. (1) Have those events during the summer that lasted the duration of the summer, that will be of public, private, partnership in putting those things on. Secondly, was to be sure that SPAR had the money to be able to compensate folks who may have to work overtime and those kinds of things, and thirdly, was to also make sure that we had the operating expense for those pools and those are the three things that the 250,000 went in, basically with a line item that would give 50 for the personnel piece a 100 for the pools and 100 for the activities, for the most part that is the real simple piece of it. Now the other part that is not apart of that is what’s listed on this back sheet it has to do with those liners and all those things that is not in that money and I wanted to be clear on that. I inculcated operational cost for what was it Anderson Island, Fairgrounds, & Valencia. Those were the things that went into this first – into my $250,000 that I asked about.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Jackson let me just kind of duck tail on that for quick math looks like $1,477 would facilitate the opening of those there pools, but as you mentioned not address the liners which is another $175,000. So again I come back to you based on having $100,000 are you going to be able open these three pools, without the benefit of a liner, and also facilitate the recreational activities that were approved by the council –

Mr. Norman: As far as the pools with that amount of money, we would be able to get those three pools open. The only other question and I addressed that to Councilman Jackson is the issue for these events is security going to come out of the portion of the money that we are receiving, which I think he clarified that to me that it was going to be –

Councilman Jackson: Right and that is why I supported Councilman Gibson’s is because the extra money that we are giving to the Police Department that is what we – that’s apart of that $50,000 as well.

Councilman Walford: I want to thank Mr. Jackson for our agreement mines is in here, so what I would like to do at this time is make a motion a substitute motion to adopt my amendment with the hard copy as was just shown the numbers —

Councilman Walford: Okay, so to substitute 2A –

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: With what Mr. Dark has explained and –

Ms. Glass: Are you going to take out –

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: I am taking out the $33,000.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson: I think it would, Mr. Walford if you would state what the intent of it is to provide $500,000 for the Police Department, from the Operating Reserve.

Councilman Walford: It would be to provide $500,000 to the police, from the Operating Reserve, and strike under SPAR $7300 for personal services, $22,200 for material and supplies, $4,000 for contractual services.

Mr. Thompson: Which leaves $250,000 for the SPAR from the Riverfront fund to do all of those things.

Councilman Walford: Correct.

Mr. Thompson: And I would ask that Mr. Dark to mark it up to do that.

Mr. Dark: Okay, I am going to read you, if you have 2A on your screen, I will read you what it ends up, and lets make sure that everybody is happy with it.

Councilman Walford: Okay.

Mr. Dark: It would say: To amend the ordinance as filed : In Section 1 (Estimated Revenues) this would remain and increase miscellaneous revenues by $7300. In Section 2 (Appropriations) General Government. Increase transfer to Retain Risk by $500,000, decrease Operating Reserve by 492,700. That in effect – takes out the duplicate Valencia money it makes the $500 hundred thousand dollar transfer less than the additional revenue that is apparently is being raised privately for pool opening. That is the only reason that stayed in there, but that does what I believe what you want it to do.

Councilman Walford: Okay gentlemen with that in mind I would ask your support for that and we can move on. I think that is getting to where all of us are trying to get with a lot of talking.

Substitute Amendment No. 2A

By Councilman Monty Walford

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Revenues):

Increase Miscellaneous Revenues by $7,300

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

General Government

Increase Transfer to Retained Risk by $500,000

Decrease Operating Reserves by $276,200

$492,700

Police Department

Decrease Personal Services by $250,000

SPAR Department

Increase Personal Services by $7,300

Increase Material and Supplies by $22,200

Increase Contractual Services by $4,000

Substitute motion by Councilman Walford, seconded Councilman Carmody for adoption of Amendment 2A as revised. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

Councilman Carmody: Well and we got a 2B that is still –

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman I would like to withdraw, sir that was contingent

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, sir.

Councilman Walford: Wait a minute, we do need to do my withdrawal.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman

Councilman Lester: He can withdrawal as –

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman there is no reason to withdraw it was never – we just had it there in case the other was defeated and so there is no reason to consider it.

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

Councilman Gibson: I just have one comment gentlemen, I do appreciate I think this is a team effort again 75 days ago we had some strong debate on it. I think 75 days ago the Police Department I want to thank the Chief of Police, I want to thank Mayor Hightower, specifically two weeks ago when they unequivocally reiterated that crime is the #1 one priority for the City of Shreveport. And with the crime stats that we are dealing with right now, I think that between the short term and long term we have got a great opportunity to assure the citizens that will continue to be a #1 one priority, and gentlemen thank you, very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, sir. Councilman Walford.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, it is not happening now, but a minute ago I looked out there and Mr. Wills, was smiling and he wasn’t smiling when he was up here earlier, but he is smiling now. So thank you gentlemen for making him smile.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Dark.

Mr. Dark: Just to give guidance on when we going back to the agenda 59 has basically been made moot by what you have done on 61 so either you can –

Councilman Carmody: We hadn’t done anything yet on 61 yet, but you are about to. I need a vote.

Mr. Dark: Sixty would still be alive.

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

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman to be consistent with our practice and with what you just did, we would ask somebody to move to adopt 59 but then vote no.

1. Ordinance No. 59 of 2004: An ordinance amending the 2004 budget for the Retained Risk Internal Service Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on May 11, 2004 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Jackson denied by the following vote. Nays: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Ayes: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

1. Ordinance No. 60 of 2004: An ordinance amending the 2004 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on May 11, 2004 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 Lester adopted by the following vote. Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman is there anyway that we could get Mr. Walford to pony up a pair of floaties for Mr. Wills.

Councilman Carmody: He is leaving.

Councilman Walford: I will do that if he would swim.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wills: I love y’all.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson: There are two amendments.

Councilman Carmody: Can I ask you to read the first please sir?

1. Ordinance No. 62 of 2004: An ordinance amending the 2004 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on May 11, 2004 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption. The Clerk read the following amendments:

Amendment No. 1

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Lucas & North Regional WWTP Expansion (00F001) by $25,000. Funding source is 1990-A Utility Revenue Bonds.

Mr. Thompson: The first amended will fund upgrades to repairs to the head works maintenance building at the Lucas Plant.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption of Amendment No. l. Motion adopted by the following vote. Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

Amendment No. 2

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program B (Recreation Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Querbes Park Golf Course Greens Renovation (04B002) by $20,000. Funding source is 1999 GOB, Prop. 2.

Mr. Thompson: This one provides contingency funds for the renovation project at Querbes, be it’s received it’s exhausted all but about $1,100 of the current project budget, SPAR has recommended that we provide some contingency money in the project.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford for adoption of Amendment No. 2. Motion adopted by the following vote. Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

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

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chair, I’m sorry and I apologize it is not in regard, but it is about capital improvement. There was a constituent I am not sure if it was my district or not who was here who was concerned about the, and it wasn’t on the agenda thou, but it was the pool and what do you call it Hattie Perry, and her request was that we would make consideration of that $400 thousand dollar in the capital improvement budget, when we meet in September, October, what have you to consider the budget and if she has left I just did not want her to think that we did look. She had signed a public comment she said, but never did called to this was here right here she said she wanted to comment on these she never was called up.

Mr. Thompson: I think she is right here.

Councilman Carmody: She’s here.

Councilman Jackson: Oh.

Councilman Carmody: And those items where not to be adopted the day that they were being introduced. I am going to give an opportunity to Ms. Scott to come and address us in just a few moments. Thank you, Ma’am. Gentlemen I believe at this point we are voting on the amended 62.

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

1. Ordinance No. 63 of 2004: An Ordinance declaring certain adjudicated properties to be surplus and to authorize the Mayor of the City of Shreveport 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 May 11, 2004 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 Lester adopted by the following vote. Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

1. Ordinance No. 64 of 2004: An Ordinance changing the name of that portion of Wonderland Drive located west of Pines Road to Timber Knoll Drive and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on May 11, 2004 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 Lester adopted by the following vote. Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman didn’t they say that 65, 66 would be withdrawn.

Councilman Walford: That’s correct.

1. Ordinance no. 65 of 2004: An Ordinance amending certain sections of the Shreveport Comprehensive Building Code, relative to appeals and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

1. Ordinance No. 66 of 2004: An Ordinance amending certain sections of the Shreveport Comprehensive Building Code, relative to hearings and appeals and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on May 11, 2004 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Lester to remove Ordinances 65 and 66 from the agenda. Motion adopted by the following vote. Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

1. Resolution No. 67 of 2004: An Ordinance amending the 2004 Budget for the General Fund Budget.

Having passed first reading on May 11, 2004 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Jackson adopted by the following vote. Ayes: Councilman Lester, Walford, Gibson, and Jackson. 4. Nays: Councilmen Carmody and Hogan. 2. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

1. Ordinance No. 68 OF 2004: An ordinance authorizing the lease of certain city-owned property to Bellsouth Mobility, LLC., d/b/a Cingular Wireless and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on May 11, 2004 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody for adoption.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Chair.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Thompson, excuse me Mr. Dark, oh I’m sorry Mr. Hogan, excuse me.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, I don’t know who to direct this question to maybe I don’t see our City Attorney. I think that this is actually going to be on Mr. Strong’s watch. Is that, I’m I correct?

Mr. Strong: (inaudible).

Councilman Carmody: No sir but I think this is a matter regarding this particular lease.

Councilman Lester: But he praise one on TV.

Mr. Antee: But you did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.

Councilman Carmody: Maybe Mr. Antee can help.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, that’s good. I am going to voice my question and Mr. Antee you might have an answer to this. Any time we enter into a lease agreement like this if it recorded at the court house, I know the papers are signed and documented and everything, but there is an old saying in real estate that a lease isn’t a lease unless it is recorded. I just wanted to make sure that it was recorded at the court house?

Mr. Antee: Yes it is recorded. It would be applicable between the parties, that the only reason why you recorded it is to be noticed to the world, but yes it will be recorded.

Councilman Hogan: Yes, thank you.

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

1. Ordinance no. 55 of 2004: An Ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the east side of Steeple Chase Plaza Drive, 300 feet south of West 70^th Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-2, Neighborhood Business District, to B-3, Community Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

Having passed first reading on April 27, 2004 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, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

The adopted Ordinances and amendments, follows:

ORDINANCE NO. 46A OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NAME OF THE LAKESIDE PARK GOLF COURSE TO JERRY TIM BROOKS GOLF COURSE AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By: Councilmen Lester and Gibson

WHEREAS, Jerry Tim Brooks was an advocate for the opening of Lakeside Golf Course and he has consistently championed the cause of the Lakeside Golf Course since it opened; and

WHEREAS, Jerry Tim Brooks has encouraged numerous young people, who were not inclined to play golf, to used Lakeside Golf Course to learn to play golf and to seek college scholarships in golf; and

WHEREAS, Jerry Tim Brooks has encouraged numerous persons of all ages, who were not inclined to play golf, to used Lakeside Golf Course to play golf to improve the quality of their lives; and

WHEREAS, Jerry Tim Brooks is an avid golfer who has won numerous golf championships at Lakeside Golf Course; and

WHEREAS, Jerry Tim Brooks’ name has become synonymous with golf at Lakeside; and

WHEREAS, Jerry Tim Brooks has a distinguished career as an educator and a distinguished career as a public servant, having served on the Caddo Parish School Board for more than twenty years.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 78-452 of the Code of Ordinances the following historical information is provided about the existing name of the Lakeside Park Golf Course:

The Lakeside Golf course was built at the existing Lakeside Park, from which its name was derived.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the Lakeside Park Golf Course is hereby renamed the Jerry Tim Brooks Golf Course. Provided, this ordinance shall not become effective unless legislation is adopted in the 2004 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, which authorizes a municipal governing authority to name a golf course in honor of a living person under certain circumstances and if this ordinance meets those requirements.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that because of the length and quality of his public service to Shreveport and its citizens, particularly his contributions to quality of life through golf and public recreation, the proscription contained in Section 78-451 (1) of the Code of Ordinances is waived.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that in accordance with Section 78-452 of the Code of Ordinances this ordinance shall not be adopted prior to July 11, 2004 and during said 90 day period the tasks delineated in Section 78-452 shall be performed.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that to comply with LSA R..S. 18:201, a certified copy of this ordinance to be furnished to the Registrar of Voters for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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

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

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

Amendment No. 1

By: Councilmen Lester & Gibson

Amend the ordinance as follows:

1. Immediately preceding the Now Therefore Be It Ordained clause, insert the following:

WHEREAS, Jerry Tim Brooks died on Wednesday, May 12, 2004; and

WHEREAS, House Concurrent Resolution No. 185 (which is attached), was adopted by the Louisiana Legislature on Thursday May 13, 2004, "(t)o urge and request the city of Shreveport to take all appropriate and immediate action to rename the Lakeside Golf Course in honor of Jerry Tim Brooks and to recognize his outstanding accomplishments"; and

WHEREAS, House Concurrent Resolution No. 185 also contains the following clause:

WHEREAS, an avid golfer, Mr. Brooks’ love of education and efforts to encourage youth participation in golf recently led legislators to introduce a bill, no longer necessary due to his passing, that authorized the city of Shreveport to rename Lakeside Golf Course after him (emphasis added).

2. The Now Therefore Be It Ordained clause is amended and enacted to read as follows:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the Lakeside Park Golf Course is hereby renamed the Jerry Tim Brooks Golf Course.

3. The second Be It Further Ordained clause is amended and enacted to read as follows:

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that for the reasons stated herein, the provisions contained in Section 78-452 (2) of the Code of Ordinances are waived.

ORDINANCE NO. 60 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2004 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund to appropriate funds and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No.168 of 2003, the 2004 budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue Fund, is hereby amended as follows:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Decrease Operating Reserves by $250,000

Increase Transfer to General Fund by $250,000

Adjust subtotals and totals accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 168 of 2003 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other 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 to be severable.

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

ORDINANCE NO. 61 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2004 budget for the General Fund to appropriate funds and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No.158 of 2003, the 2004 General Fund budget, is hereby amended as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Transfer from Riverfront Fund by $250,000

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

General Government

Decrease Transfer to Retained Risk Fund by $500,000

Police Department

Increase Personal Service by $750,000

Adjust subtotals and totals accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 158 of 2003 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other 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 to be severable.

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

Amendment No. 1

By Councilman Theron Jackson

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Police Department

Decrease Personal Services by $250,000

SPAR Department

Increase Personal Services by $50,000

Increase Contractual Services by $200,000

(Substitute) Amendment No. 2A

By Councilman Monty Walford

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Revenues):

Increase Miscellaneous Revenues by $7,300

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

General Government

Increase Transfer to Retained Risk by $500,000

Decrease Operating Reserves by $276,200

$492,700

Police Department

Decrease Personal Services by $250,000

SPAR Department

Increase Personal Services by $7,300

Increase Material and Supplies by $22,200

Increase Contractual Services by $4,000

ORDINANCE NO. 62 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2004 Capital Improvements Budget to provide transfer funds between projects and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 159 of 2003, the 2004 Capital Improvements Budget, be further amended and re-enacted as follows:

In Program D (Drainage Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Southern Oaks Subdivision Pump Station Improvements (00D003) by $120,000. Funding source is 2003 GOB.

Decrease the appropriation for Eastside Ditch Paving (01D007) by $120,000. Funding source is 2003 GOB.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance 159 of 2003, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

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

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

Amendment No. 1

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Lucas & North Regional WWTP Expansion (00F001) by $25,000. Funding source is 1990-A Utility Revenue Bonds.

Amendment No. 2

By Councilman Walford

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Lucas & North Regional WWTP Expansion (00F001) by $25,000.

Funding source is 1990-A Utility Revenue Bonds.

ORDINANCE N0. 63 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE DECLARING CERTAIN ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES TO BE SURPLUS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT TO SELL THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT’S TAX INTEREST IN CERTAIN SURPLUS ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has a tax interest in the herein below described properties which have been adjudicated for the non-payment of City property taxes; and

WHEREAS, the herein below described properties are not needed for public purposes and should be declared surplus properties; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has received offers to purchase its tax interest in the herein below described properties as indicated below.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the following described property is hereby declared surplus:

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Shreveport does hereby authorize the sale of its tax interest in the herein below described properties for an amount not less than the offer as indicated below.

Property No. 1: Legal Description - Lot 29, Block B, Lake Gardens Subdivision, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 441, Page 701 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171404-031-0029-00) Municipal Address - 3849 Dilg League Dr.

AMOUNT OFFERED: $2,700.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $18,000.00

DISTRICT G

Property No. 2: Legal Description - Lots 29 & 30, Gary Subdivision, a subdivision of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana as per plat recorded in Book S, Page 859 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171401-024-0093-00) Municipal Address - 1526 Gary Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: $100.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $12,000.00

DISTRICT A

Property No. 3: Legal Description - Lots 52 & 53, Gary Subdivision, a subdivision of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat recorded in Book S, Page 859 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171401-026-0052-00) Municipal Address- 1531 Gary Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: $100.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $7,000.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 4: Legal Description - Lots 109 & 110, North Cedar Grove Addition, a subdivision of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat recorded in Book 50, Page 476 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171424-060-0121-00) Municipal Address - 6509 Southern Ave.

AMOUNT OFFERED: $450.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $450.00 DISTRICT C

Property No. 5: Legal Description - S. 121.17 Ft. Of Lot 72 & S. 121.17 Ft. Of W.10 Ft. Of Lot 71, Lister Subdivision, a subdivision of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat recorded in Book 100, Page 267 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171306-016-0119-00) Municipal Address - 145 Stoner Avenue

AMOUNT OFFERED: $300.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $1,500.00 DISTRICT B

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport shall be authorized to do any and all things and to sign any and all documents, including Acts of Cash Sale, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney necessary to effectuate the purposes set forth 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 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.

ORDINANCE NO. 64 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NAME OF THAT PORTION OF WONDERLAND DRIVE LOCATED WEST OF PINES ROAD TO TIMBER KNOLL DRIVE AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Wonderland Drive west of Pines Road has been dedicated to the public use; however, except for the first 275 feet constructed as an asphalt road, the majority of the street has not been constructed, no addresses have been assigned and no houses or businesses face the street; and

WHEREAS, sixteen lots abut this portion of Wonderland Drive; two lots front on Pines Road and 14 on Wonderland Drive; and

WHEREAS, Greenwood Acres Baptist Church, which owns 13 of the lots which front on Wonderland Drive, has requested the name change and the remaining abutting property owners do not object to the name change; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 78-452 of the Code of Ordinances the following historical information is provided about the existing names of the streets to be renamed:

Wonderland Drive is the name selected by the owner of the subdivision and the name has no historical significance.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal, and regular session convened, that Wonderland Drive west of Pines Road in the SE/4 OF Section 2 (T17N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby renamed and changed to Timber Knoll Drive.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that because the majority of Wonderland Drive west of Pines Road has not been constructed, no addresses have been assigned and no houses or businesses face the street, the procedures contained in Section 78-452 (2) a. of the Code of Ordinances are waived.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that to comply with LSA R..S. 18:201, a certified copy of this ordinance to be furnished to the Registrar of Voters for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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

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

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

RESOLUTION NO. 67 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HIRING OF SUMMER INTERNS ON THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the employee staff of the City Council has a heavy work load in preparing and reviewing legislation for council members, preparing agendas for meetings, transcribing minutes of meetings, preparing correspondence for council members, analyzing the budgets prepared by the administration, and undertaking other matters of concern to the City Council and its constituents; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary for the exercise of the functions of the Council that it have sufficient employees to carry out these responsibilities, and the hiring of summer interns will assist in meeting that requirement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Clerk of the City Council is authorized to hire up to seven summer interns on the City Council staff, in accordance with the following conditions:

1. The positions shall be temporary, beginning no earlier than June 1, 2004 and ending no later than August 31, 2004.

2. The wages for the positions shall be $6.00 per hour, and hours shall not exceed 20 hours per week for each position.

3. Qualifications. Any person hired shall be a high school graduate, and shall be a student at a college, vocational or technical institution, or a business school, or shall be enrolled therein for the fall semester, 2004.

4. The authority granted herein is subject to sufficient funds being appropriated in the City Council budget for wages and salaries.

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 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.

ORDINANCE NO. 68 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO BELLSOUTH MOBILITY, LLC., D/B/A CINGULAR WIRELESS AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, BellSouth Mobility, LLC. d/b/a Cingular Wireless, has requested the lease of the City-owned property on Newman Lane more fully described herein in Exhibit "A", for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating a wireless communication facility (cellular antenna) and uses incidental thereto; and

WHEREAS, the said property is not needed for public purposes; and

WHEREAS, the lease provides for an initial term of five (5) years plus the option, at BellSouth’s election, to renew the lease for four (4) consecutive terms of five (5) years each; and

WHEREAS, BellSouth Mobility has agreed to pay the City the sum of $7,500.00 as up front consideration for the lease plus an additional $12,000.00 paid in equal monthly installments during the initial five (5) year term. Monthly installment payments will increase by ten percent (10%) for each of the renewal terms; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport desires to enter into this lease with BellSouth Mobility, LLC.;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened that the above described property is not needed for a public purpose.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is hereby authorized to execute all documents relative to the lease of the City-owned as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, to BellSouth Mobility, LLC., substantially in accordance with the draft hereof filed for public inspection with the original of this ordinance in the Office of the Clerk of Council on May 11, 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.

ORDINANCE NO. 55 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF STEEPLE CHASE PLAZA DRIVE, 300 FEET SOUTH OF WEST 70^th STREET, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM B-2, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO B-3, COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of Lot 12 , Steeple Chase Plaza in Huntington Park, located on the east side of Steeple Chase Plaza Drive, 300 feet south of West 70^th Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from B-2, Neighborhood Business District, to B-3, Community Business District:

THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to compliance with the following stipulations:

1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with the site plan submitted with any significant changes or additions requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

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.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

Councilman Carmody: This brings us down to unfinished Business. Does any member have any item. We have already addressed No. 3 and considered it. We just have 1 and 2.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman. I would like to withdraw Items No. 1 and 2.

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

2. Ordinance No. 152 of 2003: Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances of the Cit of Shreveport by Adding Article VIII, Division 1 and Division 2 relative to disposal of public property and disposal of adjudicated property. (A/Lester) (Tabled on Nov. 11)

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to withdraw Resolution No. 88 of 2003 and Ordinance No. 152 of 2003. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

Councilman Carmody: We have already taken up the matter of Ordinance No. 46A renaming Lakeside in honor of Jerry Tim Brooks.

1. Ordinance No. 46A of 2004: Changing the name of the Lakeside Park Golf Course to Jerry Time Brooks Golf Course.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Case No. S-19, Brenda Lilley Kraak Pettit, Northwest corner of Creswell Avenue & Montrose Drive, R-1D. (Postponed until July 27, 2004)

Mr. Thompson: Case No. S31-04 has already been taken care of the other is postponed until July 27^th. I’m sorry Mr. Chairman, we have some important business, the Chairman and Vice Chairman

Councilman Carmody: Thank you sir. I didn’t notice that we still had that under New Business, I believe the election of officers. At this time the Chair would entertain a motion for the position of Chairman of the Council.

1. Election of City Council Chairman: Councilman Walford nominated Councilman Theron Jackson as Chairman, seconded by Councilman Gibson. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

2. Election of City Council Vice Chairman: Councilman Jackson nominated Councilman Michael Gibson as Vice Chairman, seconded by Councilman Hogan. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: Councilman Green. 1.

Councilman Carmody: Very good gentlemen. If you do not mind, instead of handing over the gavel in mid-stream, if you let me run this out, I would appreciate it.

REPORTS AND OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES: None.

CLERK’S REPORT: None.

THE COMMITTEE RISES AND REPORTS: ( reconvenes Regular Council meeting)

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m.

/s/ Thomas G. Carmody, Jr., Chairman

/s/ Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council