CC 3827

10 05 04

Council Proceedings of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana

September 28, 2004

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana was called to order by Chairman Theron Jackson at 3:02 p.m., Tuesday September 28, 2004, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street)

Invocation was given by Councilman Green.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 5. Absent: None. Out of the Chamber: Councilmen Carmody, (Arrived at 3:15) and Hogan (Arrived at 3:04). 2.

Approve Minutes: Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Gibson to approve the Administrative Conference Summary Minutes of September 13, 2004 and the Council Meeting Meetings of September 14, 2004. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 6. Nays: None. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Carmody. 1.

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

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Mayor are there any recognitions, any distinguished guest you’d like to recognize at this time?

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, we do. We have a couple of different things we want to do today. But one thing that I’d like to do is recognize a group of young people aside from the group that you’re going to recognize today. We’re watching CNN, and all the local affiliates watch the storms as they batter the Florida coast and the Alabama coast over the past several weeks, and decided they wanted to do something about it. So, at this time, I see Paul Anderson out in the audience, would you kinda chaperoning this fine group of people? Looks like you got beat up. If you would, just have them come on up. All these youngsters that you see coming up right now are new heros to the Red Cross and certainly friends of those in Florida and Alabama in particular that lost property and homes and possessions that they could never retrieve, but these youngsters were all again watching TV and decided they wanted to do something to help the hurricane victims and they set up a tent at the corner of Southfield and Grover in Councilman Carmody’s district and started collecting money from passers by and they can probably tell you, it looks like we’ve got a spokesman ready, but standing in front of you, there are going to receive certificates of appreciation today from the Mayor’s Office and the City Council and the Red Cross are Haley Hooker, (why don’t you raise your hands so everybody can see who you are), Josh Woolley, Austin Grumble, Gavin Smith, Derek Bartels, Maddison Malmay, and Cadence Morgan. Madison, did you want to say something on behalf of everyone?

Madison Morgan: Not really.

Mayor Hightower: Not really? Tell everybody thank you for giving you some money, you appreciate their donations, right? Paul, did you have something.

Mr. Anderson: I tell you, it was just - - - watching these kids doing what they did was amazing to me. They started out with a goal of $500 and I thought that was a pretty hefty goal. But when we counted the money Sunday night, we had $1400, that was totally amazing to me.

And to see that these young kids out there on the street asking people for the donations was

amazing, and in the hot weather and it was just- - - , they were not asking for anything in return. And just their perseverance, we’re real proud of ‘em. All the parents are and we thank y’all for the recognition.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, the other thing that we did want to do today is we have our financial experts here concerning the Convention Center Hotel, but we will yield back to the Chair, knowing that you may want to take care of the other guest in the Chamber today.

Councilman Jackson: Let me- - -, and I’ll do it in this order. On our agenda, they have it in another order, but let me take the second thing first. I want to ask if we could for the students from Judson Elementary School to come and Mr. Clerk, I know we have a resolution. But I would like to ask Mr. Lamar and Mrs. Denmark, the principal- - - Mr. Lamar, Science teacher, I know Ms. (unclear) and a few others from the school are here. The Superintendent is here as well. I’d like to ask that they would come at this time, just prior to reading the resolution, if you would and all of those students that are representing Judson Fundamental Magnet Elementary School. If y’all turn this way first, so they can see you on TV first. And I’ve ask, if you would, for those who are here and ask our Clerk if you would to read the resolution at this time.

The Deputy Clerk read the following resolution:

RESOLUTION NO. 218 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE FOURTH AND FIFTH GRADE STUDENTS OF JUDSON FUNDAMENTAL MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FOR PLACING FIRST IN THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND SOCIAL STUDIES OLYMPIAD AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Julie Rodriguez, and David Larmar, fourth and fifth grade science and social studies teachers, led the fourth and fifth grade students of Judson Fundamental Magnet Elementary School (Judson) to a first place victory in this year’s National Science Olympiad; and

WHEREAS, although, called the National Science Olympiad, schools from Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and the United Kingdom also participated in the event; and

WHEREAS, Judson’s fifth grade students qualified for first place with 25 points higher than any other school in the event, with eight of the students making a perfect score; and

WHEREAS, Judson’s fourth grade students placed first with five more points than the second place team, with one student making a perfect score; and

WHEREAS, Judson also had three of the five projects sent to the District Science Fair to place; one project won first place, one project won second place, and one project won third place; and

WHEREAS, Judson had four projects to place at the District Social Studies Fair; one project won first place, and two projects won second place, and one project won fourth place; and

WHEREAS, Judson sent all four projects that qualified to the State Fair in Baton Rouge and one project placed fourth. Judson was the only elementary school in North Louisiana that won a place at the State Science Fair this year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that it publicly recognizes the fourth and fifth grade students at Judson Fundamental Elementary School for their academic achievements.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council thanks the faculty and staff of Judson Fundamental Elementary School, especially it’s principal Sandra Denmark and teachers, David Larmar and Julie Rodriguez, for recognizing the academic potential of their students and working to ensure that their students reach high academic goals.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be executed in duplicate originals with one original presented to Judson Fundamental Magnet Elementary and the other resolution filed in perpetuity in the office of the Clerk of Council for the City of Shreveport.

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

Councilman Jackson: In giving this resolution, let me also just add, not only these accomplishments are great accomplishments on behalf of the teachers, faculty and staff, but most importantly, the efforts of these children and those parents who are here. I’d like to ask those parents who are in the audience, if you would please stand? I want to applaud the parents as well. I simply have what is the privilege of representing the District where this school happens to be located. Great things are happening. At our last Council Meeting, exactly two weeks ago today, this school was visited by the United States Secretary of Education, Dr. Rod Paige to not only grace the school, but to present this school as a Blue Ribbon, with the distinction of being a Blue Ribbon School, one of only eight in Caddo Parish and I believe, Ms. Tyler, Caddo Parish leads the State with the number of Blue Ribbon Schools and there are only 250 schools in America who enjoy the distinction of being Blue Ribbon Schools and we are fortunate to have not only this school, but seven others in this City who are reaching those heights and who are achieving. With so many negative things and so many bad things being said about education, it’s good to know that in Shreveport, Louisiana in a little community called Queensborough, that we are still educating some of the best and brightest of our future and (unclear) of our present. So, we want to say thank you and congratulations. Mrs. Denmark who is the principal, Mr. Lamar, the Science teacher and certainly our Superintendent, Ms. Tyler, if either of you have anything that you’d like to say, we certainly welcome you at this time to come with any comments you may have.

Ms. Tyler: I was asking my Principal to please come, but to the Mayor Hightower and to our Chairperson for the Council, Mr. Theron Jackson and to the other Councilpersons. We want to thank you so much for recognition for our students at Judson Elementary Fundamental Magnet School. We want you to know that this school is one of the best schools in Caddo Parish, but we have many others. These boys and girls and their parents deserve this recognition. Thank you so much for the support you’ve given the Caddo Public Schools, this past year particularly. But, we ask that you continue to support them. This school has done a tremendous job and these boys and girls are so very proud. And please continue to recognize our students. Thank you so much.

Ms. Denmark: I would like to express my appreciation also. And I think that the connection here has been certainly not only my fine faculty and staff, but the great and wonderful supportive parents that are very, very necessary in raising these fine students and I am very, very proud to be their principal.

Councilman Lester: I just want to take a brief moment personally to acknowledge Ms. Denmark, Mr. Diggs, Rev. Lamar, that whole group at Judson. They have a fine, fine school. A fine staff. They had the best 3^rd Grade teacher in the Parish, but she’s no longer there (that would be my wife). But they have a great school and they work extremely hard. The faculty works hard, Rev Lamar and that whole Science team put in countless hours, day in and day out to help those young people do a great job. So, I’m just really proud of you guys. Keep up the good work. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Oath of Office - City of Shreveport Youth Council.

Councilman Jackson: Next on the agenda, I want to recognize- - -a few weeks ago, I guess about a month or so ago, I offered a resolution and this Council unanimously supported that resolution to construct if you will, and to begin an effort to engage young people in civic engagements via Youth City Council, here in the City of Shreveport. After a lot of work and again, I want to thank Ms. Tyler and even in the absence, I want to thank Mr. Roy Thomas, Ms. Wanda Gunn and others who worked with us to make this happen. I also want to thank all of the principals at all eleven of these high schools who had to with me sitting in front of them, endure my explanation for why I was at their school. I want to thank them for their efforts and thank them for their commitments as well. I want to ask the young people who have been selected from area High Schools, if you would, at this time to come forward. If you will, the Councilmen and those who are assembled, I want to introduce to you these young men and young women, boys and girls who have pledge their time and commitment, I want to just introduce them and then we have the privilege of having Judge Carl Stewart from 5^th Circuit Federal Court, who is here to issue, if you will the oath of office to these young people. First, Mr. DeMarcus O’Guin from Booker T. Washington H.S., Mr. Neil Blackman, Byrd H.S., Mr. Adam McFarland, Caddo Magnet H.S., Scott Hayter from Captain Shreve, H.S., Saraj Sanders from Evangel H.S., Ca’Shayla Jackson, Fair Park H.S., Samantha Green, from Green Oaks H.S., Karmel Ruben, Huntington H.S., Mr. Ben Escude` from Loyola H.S., Mr. Chris Cottrell from Northwood H.S., Ms. Lindsay Gustafson from Southwood H.S., (save the best for last, the most difficult)- - -Miss - - -yeah- - -, Ms. Collins from Woodlawn H.S. I apologize, I didn’t want to mess your name up. Tell me your name Ms. Collins?

Ms. Collins: Cucheia Collins

Councilman Jackson: Ms. Cucheia Collins from Woodlawn H.S. Alright, thank you. And I want to ask now, just before - - -I want to ask the Principals and representatives who’ve come from those High Schools to please stand as well. I certainly would be remiss if I didn’t ask the parents to stand as well. Parents, would you please stand? Thank you. Judge Stewart?

Judge Stewart: It is my privilege to administer and oath of office to you as members of the Shreveport Youth Council. I’d ask that you raise your right hands, and repeat after me. I (and state your names) do solemnly affirm that I support youth involvement in local government decision making and that I am committed to working with other youth of diverse ethnic, economic and cultural backgrounds. That I will obey all the rules and the guidelines governing my involvement as a member of the Shreveport Youth Council. And that I will perform all of my duties to the best of my ability and understanding, so help me God. Congratulations.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you to Judge Stewart, thank you for your time, and I’d like to ask if you will, those of you, will you follow Ms. Pilkinton right here, there is something that we need you to do and then you can be dismissed. Thank you so much. Mr. Mayor, are there any other awards and recognitions? Any other Councilmen? Also, before you go, I want to recognize Mr. Roy Burrell. Mr. Burrell, come on up to the mic. You come bearing gifts.

Mr. Burrell: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity, I really didn’t expect it. I wanted to come down, because as you can see, I’ve been working today, so I had 30 minutes on my meter, I said, at least I can get this done before I have to get back. But again, I would like to say that I appreciate the opportunity to come in Mr. Mayor and City Council. You all have been quite busy, I’ve been keeping up with you guys. Its been very tempting to come back to say a few things, but I think you are handling quite well. I brought to you today a little token of our appreciation for your support for our Biz Camp Entrepreneurship Training Program. Working with the Governor, the Governor is very excited about entrepreneurship development in the State. So much so, that in our - - - we have a conference coming up, Louisiana Entrepreneurship Conference in Alexandria, not Alexandria, Lafayette. And one of our Biz Camp students will be a major presenter there. Because she’s very interested now in young people getting involved in entrepreneurship. And also, Yours Truly will be a major presenter there. He’s looked at our program and somehow, it got back to her and there are some people in the State who are interested and I’m involved in a Task Force to look at entrepreneurship State-wide. So, with that, you never know what kind of seed you plant here in the City and what Shreveport has done in terms of becoming a forerunner in a lot of different areas. Sometime we beat up on ourselves and beat up on ourselves too much. There are a lot of good things that come out of Shreveport/Bossier and especially Shreveport and I’m glad that you all are continuing that effort to make Shreveport stay on the map. And I think that is so important. So again, you take your nice wear and hopefully, out on the golf course, or wherever you decide to wear it, that you would think about our youngsters. We’ve educated over 200 students here in entrepreneurship and we’re looking to expand our program. Matter of fact, we will be a part of several after school tutorial program in entrepreneurship. We’ve been asked to do that and we’re very excited about it. Thanks again.

Councilman Green: Thank you.

Mr. Burrell: Now, don’t beat up on me Green, you know how that goes.

Councilman Green: Thank you very much Representative for the token that you gave and certainly it was just a great spirit for you to do it. I just had one question. Can we also get this in green?

Mr. Burrell: (unclear) on that for next year.

Councilman Lester: On that same note, I guess Representative Burrell and all in fun, he knows where I’m coming from. The only person who will probably be happy to wear this would be, you know - - - Representative Jackson with all this red. I mean no respecting Omega Man’s going to walk around in all this red. Can I have my shirt in purple next yea?. I guess that’s what I’m asking.

Mr. Burrell: I’ll work on it and make a special exception.

Councilman Carmody: As one of 13 children, Roy you’ll appreciate this, I like free clothes, regardless of what the color is and I want to thank you for the shirt.

Mr. Burrell: You’re one of 13, I’m one of 14.

Councilman Carmody: You’re one of 14. I knew you’d understand that comment. But thank you for the shirt. I’ll wear it proudly.

Councilman Gibson: Representative Burrell, thank you for the shirt. And also thank you for the good work down in Baton Rouge. I know that as a freshman representative, you’ve done our City a great service and I know that we’re looking for bigger and better things. And appreciate your focus on I-49 in some of the things that you’re leading on that standpoint. Thank you very much.

Mr. Burrell: I appreciate that and I can show you my scars whenever you get time.

Councilman Gibson: (unclear) notes on that. Thank you Representative Burrell. Any other awards, or recognition? Mayor Hightower, you have a presentation?

Reports:

Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel

Mayor Hightower: Yes Mr. Chairman, we do. As you know on today’s agenda, there is an item on there that ask you, ask the City Council to consider approval of the hotel venture for the Convention Center. Today, we’ve assembled once again, our group of experts from citigroup, Solomon Smith Barney, the City’s financial adviser along with HRI, the hotel development company. And they’re going to come before you and show you the figures, show you the financing possibilities and options that we’ll face over the next several months to get this hotel up, built and running; and doing what it should do to supplement, compliment the brand new Convention Center that’s now under construction. So with that, I’ll turn it over to Ken. Since we have received the two studies from PKF and HVS that both assure us that the hotel venture is financially sound and stable and a project that should happen. Again, to support the Convention Center and the activities, that it will generate and in turn generate economic development and employment opportunities for our citizens.

Mr. Antee: On Thursday, we had passed out or gave out the HVS market analysis, study analysis and financial projections. We should receive either tomorrow or the next day, the final version of the PKF report. As everybody will recall, PKF has been involved from day 1 doing market analysis. This is their third market analysis since 1999, that they are completing. HVS, the Council voted. HVS came to us as a recommendation from one of the two names submitted by Councilman Gibson. The feasibility study and market analysis came in, that I passed out last week at 25-30% higher in net operating income revenues over expenses than the PKF report. It’s a 150 page study. It’s very in depth. And I think it verifies what we’ve said all the long and that by using PKF, they’re known throughout the industry as being very conservative. And so that the numbers that we have from them, we can feel very confident in. We’ve got with us today from citigroup, David Livingstone and Todd Frietchman, is that right Todd? Close enough, Gordon King, one of our City financial advisors as well as Eddie Boatner with HRI who is the developer and HRI Lodging who will operate and manage the hotel. I’m going to let you tell them, I’m going to let them tell you what they recommend in terms of financing, what they recommend is the best way and the most prudent way to finance the hotel and then after that, I’ll have a few more comments about where we are in the process. Yesterday, I gave everybody a schedule, basically of where we are on the hotel project. It is very important and the reason why we wanted to bring the experts in today is so that they could address you, they could lay it all out, you could look at it, ask any questions, if you have any questions over the next two weeks, get it to us so that we can get it to them and get it answered. Its very important that we vote in two weeks, so that we can be on the agenda for the Bond Commission the third week in October. And so we do ask that if you do have any questions, ask it while they’re here today or get ‘em to us so that we can get ‘em answered so that we can vote in two weeks and not ask for a continuance. Because it’s very important that we get on the Bond Commission’s agenda. If in fact you do find that a hotel is necessary as we contend that it is, and that it is viable and feasible. With that I’ll turn it over to David Livingstone with citigroup.

Mr. Livingstone: Thank you. I think we have a presentation here which should show up on these screens. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, thanks very much for inviting me here to discuss the financing of your Convention headquarters hotel. I work for citigroup, this is Todd Frietchman, my colleague. I’d like to spend just a couple of minutes telling you about citigroup and our expertise in financing a project like this one. And then talk about liability of financing this project. citigroup is the world’s largest financial services firm. We have offices at 100 countries, we’ve got a quarter-million employees. Brand names that you’re probably most familiar with are Citibank, A.M Solomon and Smith Barney, Smith Barney being our brokerage operation. I guess more specific, I know we may have an office is Sri Lanka, but that may not be helpful in financing your hotel. We’re proposing to finance a good chunk of this with tax exempt bonds and citigroup is the No. 1 underwriter of tax exempt bonds. We’ve been No. 1 in each of the past seven years and you can see between us and UBS, each of us have about double volume of any of the other firms in the market. In terms of financing hotels on a tax exempt basis, there haven’t been a lot of ‘em, but we’ve been asked, many of the ones that have gotten done. I’m showing on this page are four convention headquarters hotels that we and people at citigroup assisted in financing. St. Louis, McCormack, Place which is in Chicago, Sacramento and Oberland Park, Kansas which is just outside Kansas City. I will say that some of these projects have done well like McCormack Place Hyatt. But other projects haven’t done so well. St. Louis project and the Oberland Park project. And they haven’t done well because unfortunately, both of them were sort of developed prior to 9-11, September 11, 2001, but came into operation after that time. I’m sure that you all are well familiar that after 9-11, tourism and travel had a severe drop and as a result, both of these projects haven’t faired as well. I think in some ways, this helps you because, No. 1, the PKF and HVS analysis’ that you’re receiving now are much more conservative than the ones that you would have received early in 2001. And secondly, in structuring the deal for you, I think we used a more conservative structure, and we’ve looked at how some of these deals have been re-worked and try to incorporate that into the financing structure we’ll present to you today. Three more hotels that we financed are at Holiday Inn at Kennedy Airport, Crowne Plaza, Leguardia and a resort for Hyatt on Chesapeake Bay. Let me talk for a moment about our approach to evaluating the financing for this project. And maybe this is what we do and what we rely on for other folks. We take the information that PKF and HVS and primarily we looked at PKF’s work because they’ve been working on it for a longer period of time and they’re the most conservative of the two projections. We take the revenue expense projections, and we take capital cost projections from HRI. Those will be updated with the actual construction bids that will be received next year. And then we also take some of your sources of funds you have. You have capital outlay grant from the State. There is some incremental tax revenues. We look at all these things, and in working with Gordon King and your financial adviser, look at a bunch of financing alternatives, and then we try to come up with an optimal structure which is not necessarily the lowest cost, but the one that balances, risk and cost is the best way. A little about the overview of our financing, we’re proposing financing your roughly 300 room convention headquarter hotel with two primary sources of dollars. 1) $12,000,000 of State capital outlay money which is a grant that they are giving you. Secondly, $40,000,000 of tax exempt bonds. Those tax exempt bonds will be secured by (unclear). They buyers of those bonds are going to look to three primary sources for repayment. The first one is a lien on the hotel revenues, the net hotel revenues after payment of operation (unclear) expenses. Secondly, the incremental tax revenues which are the sales tax on food and room of 2 ½ % that’s generated by this property and similarly, the rebate on your room tax which is about 3 1/4 % which again from this property. And I think as you’ll see in the next few slides, those two revenue sources should more than cover the debt service on $40,000,000 in bonds. But in the event for some reason that they don’t, we have proposed a City guarantee as a backstop which again will be tapped only if hotel revenues are insufficient. On this slide, we lay out the net operating income which is all the revenues the hotel generates minus property expenses and the FF&E reserve which is fixtures, furniture equipment which is replaced in sheets, bedding and hard goods and soft goods at the hotel, that net number, this is what’s being projected by PKF in green and by HVS in red. I will note that these graph, this graph does not include incremental taxes that - - - of about $600,000, at least in 2009 that are expected to be generated by the hotel. Talking for a moment about the City’s backstop, this guarantee that we proposed the City makes. I would mention under all financing options we’ve evaluated, some form of city backstop is required. Under some options that we look at, a partial city backstop is unneeded and others, the one that we’re proposing, a full city backstop is proposed. The benefits of having a full city backstop is that it significantly lowers cost of capital to the project. So, you can see sort of in the middle lines, it’s a true interest cost, that is sort of your average cost of funds and you can see with the partial city backstop, is about 5 3/4% whereas it’s 5.3% with a full city backstop, saving you about four-tenths of a per cent. What that translates into cash flow coming to the City is almost $15,000,000 over the 30 years that these bonds are expected to be outstanding. Additionally, we can full city backstop, its more expedited and lowered cost, financing legal process and I guess, I don’t talk about this on the page, but think I should mention, I think the City needs to ask itself a question. Would, you know we’ve got a convention center and a hotel which are like inter connected. They’re right next to each other, they share food and beverage operations. You know people can walk between the two without going outside. The question is would the City allow this hotel to go into default or foreclose? I think that the answer is no, then why pay bond holders the extra money to take the risk of hotel revenues when the City will ultimately bail them out anyway. Next, I’d like to turn to the financial structures that we considered. I guess the first is fixed rate bonds to maturity. I’ll analogize to a home mortgage, fixed rate funds or you have the same principal and interest. Debt service payments every payment for the life of the (unclear) know what your payments are. The second option is variable rate bonds which I believe is how the stadium was financed. And those bonds, the interest rates fluctuate up and down on weekly or monthly basis based on the market. That is the lowest cost that entails the highest risk. Because obviously, if rates jump up, you’re going to be incurring that additional cost. Finally, we proposed sort of a hybrid of these first two structures where, which is sort of like one of these mortgages where your rate is locked in for the first five years and then it goes into a variable rate. And here what we’ve proposed is splitting the bond issue into three pieces of equal sizes and walking in the rates for ten years for the first piece, 15 years for the second, and 20 for the third. We think this sort of gives you a benefit of both, yet at lower rates, which you also lock in your interest cost during the period when the hotel revenues are ramping up. Some of the results of these three cases and again, we used the PKF numbers is - - -we assumed the $40,000,000 bond issue in all cases. And as you can see in the fixed rate case, are all in the cost of funds is 5.33%. The variable rate case is 3.36% and with this hybrid structure, it sort of falls in the middle at 4 ½ %. In terms of debt service coverage which basically is how much cushion you have in revenues above your cost of debt, you can see the are the variable rate cases you expect as the most of almost two times, so your revenues are doubled what your debt service cost is and (unclear) hybrid cases next with 1.7 x an all fixed rate is 1 ½ x meaning your revenues are 50% greater than your debt service cost. In terms of cash flow to the City, as you can see, you save money by the variable rate and this hybrid structure. A few graphs here. The top one there is PKF’s net operating income projection and this line does include- - -does that include the $600,000? That includes the $600,000 incremental taxes. And then you have your three debt services cases. The green case which is the highest debt service versus your fixed rate debt, the middle line is that hybrid case and the third line is the variable rate case. And again, in the variable rate case, we assume variable rates are run at the ten year historic average. So obviously, if they go above that, your debt service line is going to rise. If we ran it at the rates they are today, which are near historical lows, that line would be lower. In terms of coverages that debt service covers, again, we have this line that all variable rate case, again on the average is almost 2x, revenues are almost 2x debt service and that is red in the middle is almost 1.7x your debt service. But there is significant cushion in case the revenue expense projections are overly optimistic. Finally, this graph shows what the cash flow is expected to be to the City if the PKF revenue expense projections are realized in 2009, which is the first stabilized year of operation. The variable rate case would result in 1.1million, but cash flow to the City hybrid case - $1,000,000 and all fixed rate case is $700,000. Well, finally before I turn it over to others and questions, you say I’ve painted a rosy picture of why can’t this hotel be financed privately? In our view of private financing of this hotel isn’t feasible. If you look at the PKF or the HVS revenues expense projections, and look at what it would cost a private entity to get in equity and to finance it, those hotel capital will only support somewhere between a $25-40,000,000 project in our estimation. Of the total hotel capital cost range up to $50,000,000. So, as you can see there’s a significant shortfall in our view, we don’t think this can be done on a private basis. Then you may ask well, why can it be done by the City? Well, the City benefits from a number of things that aren’t available to the private sector. No. 1. $12,000,000 of State money, which you don’t have to pay back. That’s a big advantage. You don’t pay property taxes. You can finance the bond portion on a tax exempt basis which is the lower cost of funds than the private sector can achieve. You benefit from these incremental tax revenues and finally, you own the land already, and you’re not charging yourself anything for that and presumably, if you were to let the private sector do it, they would have to lease or purchase the land from you. And with that, (unclear) any questions?

Mr. Antee: No, we can see if they had any questions from any of the Council.

Mr. Walford: What- - - I realize you’d be kinda picking a number, but what kind of rate of return on an investment would a private enterprise look for?

Mr. Livingstone: Well, what we did in the analysis we showed is somewhere on the aggregate between 10 and 12% and that’s a combination of debt and equity. The debt is probably a number lets say 6 or 7%. The equity is the number in the mid to high teens. And in the aggregate, that adds up to being a cost of capital of between 10 and 12%.

Mr. Antee: I think what Councilman Walford is asking you is, in the private sector, in order to invest this kind of money for this type of project, what kind of return on the investment would a private investor be looking for?

Councilman Walford: That’s where I’m going.

Mr. Livingstone: They’d be looking for something like in the mid to high teens return on their equity. So 15, 17%. And again, in my estimation.

Councilman Carmody: Your slide, they weren’t numbered, but the one where you showed debt service, can you go back to that slide please?

Mr. Livingstone: Sure.

Councilman Carmody: I think we’re all kinda straining to read it on the information that was provided. But, if I can read it correctly, but okay, if PKF’s net operating income is shown in that yellow line at the top of the graph?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: Then of course, the three different lines of the different variable rates, fixed rates and bonds fixed is mixed, if the projections which we’ve already talked about PKF being more conservative, the projections for the net operating income do not reach the projections as shown here, where will the balance of the debt service come from, from what sources?

Mr. Livingstone: Well, I guess the first thing is, you know, the PKF number ends up being close to $3,000,000 dollars in that first stabilized year in 2009 and but debt service under lets say hypothetically, they hybrid case is $2,000,000 (unclear) close to there, so basically, (unclear) can absorb the first million dollars so, you know, you can run numbers of occupancies of below the 66% that PKF projects and room rates are below the $108 (odd) a night, you know, it can absorb the first million dollars, but after that and then we’ve got a reserve fund, but ultimately, (unclear) the City guarantee.

Councilman Carmody: Yes sir, I guess that’s really a question for Mr. Antee, as to what source would the Administration look to satisfy the bond holder?

Mr. Antee: Built into the $52,000,000 cost is a $3.4 million debt service reserve. And in year four where it shows $1,000,000 profit, that $1,000,000 the first, that million as Mr. Livingston said would have to be off by a much as a third there, then you would tap into for anything less than that, the $3.4 million debt service requirement. But before the City would ever have to pay anything, it would have to accumulate losses over a period of time in excess of the $3,000,000 over and above their projected (unclear).

Councilman Carmody: Correct, and so then I guess that goes to the question that I had. Once we tap that $3.4 million reserve, what source of revenue, if indeed we find ourselves in a situation to have to make the bond holders hold, will we utilize?

Mr. Antee: Well, that would have to be looked at, at the time. If we were to do that today, then it would depend on how much cushion need to be made up, because you don’t have to go in and pay the whole $40,000,000 at one time. If the debt service is $2,000,000 and they need a hundred-thousand of it, you take a hundred out of $3.4 (million). Now that $3.4 (million) is going to be generating interest over a long period of time, so it will continue to increase. So, if in fact it ever got to the point to where the debt service reserve is completely used up according to PKF and according to HVS, that’s not going to take (unclear), but in any event that they’re both off by 30 or 40% which it would take to use all of that up, then we’d have to look at whatever is, or the Administration at that time would have to look at whatever sources were available, be it Riverfront, be it General Fund, or whatever else may be out there at that time.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Livingstone, back in the beginning, you were talking about the different scenarios for financing. And under either of these two, where you quoted the variable rate bonds or the hybrid arrangement, what would drive the interest rate under the scenario where you said (unclear) one-third for each of the five increment years and - - - what determines the interest rate at the second set at the end of the five years, the re-negotiating, is that a combination of something plus prime or - - - ?

Mr. Livingstone: 100% of this thing is fixed for ten years. Then at the end of ten years, a third becomes variable. And at that point, you have a choice. You could fix it for another period of time, or if you did nothing, what ends up happening is the bonds would become variable rate meaning like the stadium bonds, the rate is set every week or every month. And it’s set at what they call market clearing rate and it follows very closely to a tax exempt index. Because obviously, buyers in this debt don’t pay taxes on the issuances they receive. So, if they’re willing to accept something less than time, right now those bonds, Gordon if you know, I think they’re like trading just north of 1%. It just depends on what the market for tax exempt (unclear) bonds are at that time.

Mr. Antee: Most recent that I handed out yesterday on the stadium financing was 1.6%.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Livingstone, in terms of - - - you stated that we had two projects that y’all recommended that didn’t do well, tell me why the McCormack Place Project did well.

Mr. Livingstone: Did well?

Councilman Gibson: Yes.

Mr. Livingstone: Well, it was financed about five years earlier. I’m trying to remember the exact date, but it was sort of in the mid ‘90s. So that project was built and got up and was operating in - - - you know long before September 11^th, so it had started generating income. I guess that’s the first thing. The second thing is McCormack Place in Chicago is our probably one of the two or three best destinations for national conventions. So, when the convention market started getting or drying up somewhat, what happened is McCormack Place ended up lowering their rates and conventions that would have been in Columbus, Ohio or Indianapolis or St. Louis, went to McCormack Place and so their business held up better than these other national - - - convention centers that host national type conventions.

Councilman Gibson: So even being a convention destination place as Chicago is, and I’ve been to several conventions up there, they had to lower their rates to be attractive, correct?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s correct.

Councilman Gibson: Okay. Second question. If no backstop or no guarantee by the City was put on place, would this be a feasible project?

Mr. Livingstone: Say that again?

Councilman Gibson: If there was no backstop and the City did not guarantee this project, would this be a feasible project?

Mr. Livingstone: Self debt to finance it? No.

Councilman Gibson: It would not be feasible without the City backing it?

Mr. Livingstone: There are structures where there would be a combination of debt that the City back stops and a debt that is supported solely by the hotel revenues, we in today’s market, we don’t believe with revenue projections like PKF shows, that it would be feasible without some form of city back up.

Mayor Hightower: Because of the difference in the interest rate,

Mr. Livingstone: That’s right because of the difference in the interest rate and you know, this hotel would have to generate $130 a night room rate, instead of the $106 that PKF projects.

Councilman Gibson: Well, I appreciate that, but at the same time, we’re the one’s taking all the risk.

Mr. Antee: But the bond holders are also taking a risk.

Councilman Gibson: Well, I can appreciate it, but we’re not representing the bond holders, we’re representing the taxpayers here in Shreveport.

Mr. Antee: I know, but if we’re going to make statements, lets make sure the statements are accurate.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Antee, I’m not going to go through this again with you, I’m directing this to Mr. - - - the representative here. My third question dealt with local hotels. You made the comment about the competitiveness because, this is a good way about going about financing the hotel, that we don’t have to pay taxes, and we own our own land, and we can set the price. Obviously, that’s been one of the concerns of the local hotel operators in town. And I’ve heard the spill over affect, that’s if we meet the projections. If we don’t there’s not going to be any spill over affect, but yet the local hotel operators, both in Shreveport and Bossier and the surrounding areas, are not going to have the luxury of being able to not pay their taxes, to drop their prices just in order to be competitive with the hotel. I guess, I’d be curious to hear your comments regarding that situation.

Mr. Livingstone: I don’t really feel like that’s a question I can answer. I’ve been looked to assess the financial feasibility of this property. I will make the point that most of the experts will tell you that, for the Shreveport Convention Center to be a success, it needs a Convention Headquarter Hotel. And with that hotel, there is a lot of spill over where incremental room nights are generated by other hotels in the area. And I think that if you look at the PKF study, they will show that by having this, a convention headquarter hotel will generate additional room nights for the existing hotels in the Shreveport area.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Livingstone, we were very much aware of that back at least seven or eight years ago, that the convention center and hotel were necessities in terms of working hand in glove. We’re in this situation because we’ve got a convention center underway and now, we’ve got to do something in order to make that convention center work. My last comment deals with we’re being asked to look at public financing this hotel with guaranteeing with financing through the bond holders. My colleagues a month or so ago, or maybe I was premature to put a formal request for proposal on the docket. We still don’t (unclear) that the private hotel chains are in terms of looking at this project. Your experience in terms of hoteliers coming to the table, if in fact, if our back stop isn’t there, isn’t there a likelihood that if we put out a formal request for proposal out to the private sector, that they may step to the table and put 50-60% on the table and the City collect 30-40% on the table to do that public/private endeavor?

Mr. Livingstone: You know if the City is willing to put up like - - - give the private sector, I know what the number is. $20-30,000,000, basically pay for half of the hotel and let them profit, the private sector profit from them, you know that is probably something that private hotels (unclear).

Councilman Gibson: We still don’t know that yet. And I kinda liken this to kinda like General Motors that we have here, and we’re very fortunate to have a $1,000,000,000 facility. General Motors built that $1,000,000,000 facility here in this area. The City and the Parish worked collectively to put infrastructure in place to support that facility, but the City of Shreveport didn’t go out and build that $1,000,000,000 facility. And I think there’s a lot of things there that again, have concerns in terms of when we put our guarantee on the table, because in talking with cities like Myrtle Beach and St. Louis, when that shortfall hits, we’re on the books, this is Councilman Carmody making the statement a minute ago, where is that money gonna come from? That’s yet to be determined as I heard just a minute ago from Mr. Antee. And what we’ve heard from Mike Strong in terms of $200,000,000 in needs for water and sewer, and Police and things of that nature, we’re running a tight ship as it is, up here and in talking with the Mayor of Myrtle Beach, each year, it’s almost like a Christmas present the way he described it, although it’s not a Christmas present, it’s a surprise as to whether they’re up or down in terms of revenue or if they’re going to have to reach in their general fund to make up that difference, and that’s the challenge that this City is having to look at right now to make this hotel as successful as it can be. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Green: Mr. Antee, I’ll direct my first one to you. Why did we have this study?

Mr. Antee: Well, the PKF studies was necessary or one of these studies that (unclear) was necessary in order to get the information on an incoming expense basis, so that we could take it to the Bond market. The HVS study was as a result of Councilman Gibson requesting that HVS and the Council approving, them to come in and do a study just to have a second opinion on PKF. And that’s the reason - - -

Councilman Green: And how much did we pay for this study?

Mr. Antee: The PKF study was $18,000 and HVS was $30,000.

Councilman Green: Okay, alright. So, now that we have the study, what do we do with it?

Mr. Antee: Well, they’ll be used by the financial experts and advisors to take to New York to when they sell the bonds assuming that it’s approved by the Council and they’ll base their decision as to how much they sell in bonds or whether or not they’ll even purchase any bonds and they’ll use those reports and they’ll base their opinion on those reports plus their own financial advisors within these buying groups.

Councilman Green: Okay, from your opinion and then I’ll come to you sir. Is there a need now that we have this information to organize another group or pay another group to study the study that we just studied?

Mr. Antee: Not in our opinion.

Councilman Green: Okay. Now, to you sir. Give me your best scenario as to what’s the best can come out of this? Because what happens is sometimes in life, we, in projects like this, and here again, you have to understand that some of this is going to be political. So, it has nothing to do with you, you just done a great job. But sometimes in life, we go through and we find all of the holes that we can punch in and find all the bad stuff. You know, it’s like when I go buy a car or go buy my house, then I don’t sit there with the financial folk and say well, what about on the fifth year that my salary go down and with the market going, and maybe my job is not going to be, so if that happens, what are y’all going to do? Are y’all going to take my car, or will y’all let me re-finance or whatever? We just sign the dotted line and say hey listen, I want this car, or I want this house, give me 30 years and in 30 years, I probably would pay $500,000 for a hundred and some-thousand dollar house, but I don’t care about that. Because at my house, it’s not political. But up here, it’s political. So, I got to get all of the holes and I gotta make sure that all the bases are covered. Whereas, basically when we do everything else, then we do it by faith. We have desire, we have belief, and we have expectation. So, I want the best scenario that you can give now that we got this on paper. Because now that we’ve paid $18,000 for one side and then we paid $30,000 on the other side, if in fact we don’t’ do nothing with this, then we just got some paper that possibly can’t be recycled, because y’all probably typed on both sides. So, give me your best scenario as to the good stuff that could happen with a convention center and a hotel together.

Mr. Livingstone: Well, I guess I should make a couple of comments. One is if everybody tells you your convention center, which you’re investing what a hundred odd-million dollars to build is far more valuable than in fact (unclear) having this hotel, the second thing is what are the things, you know I find I been working at citigroup and the predecessor firms for 18 years and you learn a lot by seeing how deals perform over the past long period of time. I think that we’re coming out of a pretty extraordinary time in the travel industry after 9-11. You know, hotel occupancy was way down, air travel was way down, the convention business was way down and I think that all these financial experts are PKF and HVS are taking that information and using it to make their projections so, being an optimist, I think that things are going to be better than they were over the past couple of years in the travel business and the hotel business and you know, the hotel will actually perform better than what PKF and HVS have said. At least that would be my hope.

Councilman Green: Thank you and I’d just like to thank you for a good report and I’d just like to say that we’ve spent $48,000 up here. We okay’d it and unless we do something with what we’ve requested, then we’re possibly and of course my colleague Councilman Lester is a lawyer so, he could probably tell us more about it, we going to have malfeasance in office for mis appropriation of tax payers money. So, Councilman if you could give us a report on - - - if you could get a study on that for next Council Meeting, I would appreciate it. But we’re talking about $48,000 right? That we put together and now that it’s here, I have a sneaky suspicion that before this meeting is over, we’re going to have to call for somebody else to study what you already studied. But it’s not reflection on your work. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Livingston? Is that correct?

Mr. Livingstone: Livingstone.

Councilman Carmody: I did have a question again, I hate to keep going back to this one slide, but your debt service slide begins in year 2008? If remember if I’m not mistaken, in 2009 is showing to be the first year of stabilization?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s right.

Councilman Carmody: Is there a debt to be serviced prior to 2008 and if so, then how is that debt to be paid?

Mr. Livingstone: There is, during construction, when there are no revenues from the hotel, we do what we call capitalizing interest meaning we sell more bonds than needed for the construction part, but that additional bond money goes in fund interest during that construction period, which is approximately two years. Is that right Todd, two years? I think it’s longer than the actual construction period. Then a typical hotel, it takes a while to ramp up. We capitalize some additional interest to provide sort of a reserve during that ramp up period. So, it’s not until 2009 when the debt service is fully covered by the hotel revenues.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, but then you said, that y’all would sell more bonds - - - if right now, we’re projecting the sales of $40,000,000, how much more will we sell to cover that?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s all built into the $40,000,000.

Councilman Carmody: The other is an observation of a statement that you made and I actually think its - - - the question needs to be asked, but you’re probably not the appropriate party to answer it. But in the scenario, and is it McCormack Place that’s in Chicago?

Mr. Livingstone: Yes.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, again my comment goes to I guess when we were originally talking about the markets which we would be competing against, that it was described that we would be going toward’s 2^nd and 3^rd tier convention center market as opposed to the 1^st tier market, so that our competition would likely be the Mobile, AL, the Jackson, MS, the Little Rock, AR, the Alexandria, LA and the Beaumont, TX. Okay? But in McCormack Place’s necessity to try and put some heads in beds, it sounds like what they did is that they lowered their rate in order to cast their net of opportunity wider which influenced some of those 2^nd and 3^rd tire markets. Is that not correct?

Mr. Livingstone: I don’t really think it impacted the 2^nd and 3^rd tier markets. It impacted the other 1^st tier markets. Like for instance. You know St. Louis may have gotten a lot of those sort of religious convention business who wouldn’t normally go to Chicago, because they don’t want to pay $150 a night for the hotel room. But because of September 11, the hotels were willing to sell rooms for $115 a night. So, as a result, they said alright we’re going to Chicago instead of St. Louis. I agree with you. The McCormack Place example was just about the best one of the hotels we’ve financed. Not that it’s comparable to you.

Councilman Carmody: But I guess my observation would be this, is that at the time in the late ‘90s where we were anticipating competing within that strata of comparable markets, in reality now in 2004, we’ll probably be competing with the 1^st tier markets that are trying to keep opportunity coming into their community with us. I mean, it’s just the reality of business. I mean, again we’ve agreed I think that the Administration’s made a commitment that we will not advertise a lower room rate than I guess the rest of the downtown market. But, sometimes, I guess necessity demands that you try to do your best because of course, that’s what we’re charging HRI with is that make this hotel the most viable business concern that, I guess the City of Shreveport is placing itself to back up. And that again is just a function of the way the market operates. So, I guess we kinda need to be realistic about the fact that we have to have a broader perspective of who we will need to compete against as opposed to the Mobiles, Little Rock, Beaumont.

Mr. Antee: Councilman Carmody, I think I can respond to that. To some degree, there is no question that since 9-11, we will be competing with some of the 1^st tier for some of their smaller business that they use to fill space. There’s no question about that. But that’s what was taken into account by SMG who is the biggest in the business in doing that as well as HVS and PKF. So while the market has changed on the hotel side, it’s also changed on the convention side and all of that has been taken into account by all three of those companies that are paid professionals and experts in that area.

Councilman Jackson: On the same subject, that he was just asking about, is it correct, and I guess Mr. Antee, you can speak to this and (unclear). Is it correct that if 9-11 had never happened, we would still be competing for some of the smaller conventions that would have gone to a Tier 1 market anyway, wouldn’t we?

Mr. Antee: There’s no question, that when New Orleans for example does not have one of their 20,000+ conventions, taking up their full facility, but they have two smaller ones taking up two-thirds of it, that they’re going out there looking for the same type conventions we will be looking at to fill some of that space. It was that way before, it’ll be that way after and it will always be that way. But again, that is something that has been considered and is part of the projections by SMG, PKF and HVS.

Councilman Jackson: But it would still be, and I’m pigging back on what Councilman Carmody said, or let me just say taking another perspective. It would facetious of us to believe we could ever compete with a Tier 1 market with regards to the conventions that they are really going after?

Mr. Antee: We’ll be competing with Tier 1 markets for competition that meets our convention center. Now, where we will have advantages over those Tier 1 markets, is in conventions the size that we have, we will be able to offer them a lower cost, because the cost of these other facilities are more in terms of - - - it would be a lot easier to get a lower room rate in Shreveport than in New Orleans. But it’s always, there’s always going to be some competition there and they will always be competing for some business, but again, and I’ll emphasize again, that’s what PKF, HVS and primarily SMG are in the business of doing and the most respected, and biggest in their industry in doing that. So, they know what they’re doing.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, one other comment I’d like to make along those lines. When New Orleans, for instance, in the scenario that Ken is talking about may have three different conventions going on in the New Orleans convention center to fill it up, at least two of those groups, I think we have an advantage over, if indeed one of the most important reasons they select a site is a headquarters hotel. We’ll be able to offer that where group two and group three won’t have that offer to them in a New Orleans or Dallas, because there’s only one hotel. So, this hotel and I think that shows you how important the hotel is when we start competing head to head with conventions that we can actually attract here. We’re not going to contract with the Ford Dealers Convention or the Honda Dealer Convention or the State Farm Insurance Convention for Shreveport. We’re just not big enough. So, that’s not a market, but the smaller things are and again, the convention center hotel, as you’ve heard from Mr. Livingstone today, you’ve heard from PKF, you’ve heard from HVS, you’ve heard from HRI, you’ve heard from SMG is an integral part of the success of the convention center. So, again, I think that’s just another little niche that gives us the competitive edge. So, I don’t think we need to run from the big boys. In certain situations, we’re going to be head to head super competitive.

Councilman Lester: I might have been lost in translation, but I’m not sure that Councilman Carmody’s question was answered and I’m going to go back to it. And if I missed it, I apologize. Going back to debt service, because I was looking with some interest as well with the slide on debt service. And that debt service number appears to begin at 2008 or 2009? And obviously the hotel’s going to be open in 2007 if everything goes as planned. My question is the slide does not show where the debt service is in 2007 or 2008, it appears that it only picks up in 2009. Am I correct on that?

Mr. Antee: Here’s I think the answer to both of y’all’s question. The $52,000,000 project, $30,000,000 is construction cost. There are other cost in there. Part of what’s calculated into that $52,000,000 is about $2 ½ (million) in what’s called capitalized interest. That’s interest from the day the bonds are sold, when we have to start making payments. Once the hotel opens, it’ll start bringing in revenue, but it won’t bring in revenue until it’s at this level, until it stabilizes in what they project as year 4. The part of the $52,000,000 and part of the bond proceeds will be put into a fund that you take the revenue of the hotel, the excess revenue of the hotel and then you have this capitalized interest that makes the payment. So, they calculated into what? Two years after opening? Two years after opening up money that’s going to have to be paid out of this fund to make sure that the debt service is covered.

Councilman Carmody: Is that 3.4+ interest that you were talking about? The $3.4 (million) reserve plus interest?

Mr. Antee: No, totally separate. You’ll have $3.4 (million) in debt service reserve. That’s sitting there for a rainy day and in case they can’t meet the projection. They’ve got for two years after opening or the second year of operation, they’ve got money set aside to pay the debt. Now if the hotel comes out of the blocks doing much better than what they thought, then you’ll have that money still sitting there because it won’t get used. But they calculate into the project what the debt service is for those two years and then put the money aside to make sure that the debt is covered and it doesn’t even touch the $3.4 (million) debt service reserve fund.

Councilman Lester: If no one comes in the hotel in 2007 and no one comes to the hotel in 2008, debt service will be covered from this fund, is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Antee: Not all of it. I mean, they’ve calculated some revenue coming in, but they don’t anticipate the hotel, the first year will make enough money to pay all of it’s debt. So, in the capitalized interest, they’ve got that set aside to make that payment separate than the $3.4 (million).

Councilman Lester: Okay, my question is how much is that payment going to be, because it’s not reflected on this particular chart.

Mr. Livingstone: No, it’s not in that chart, but it’s reflected in our numbers. We’re showing that we fund a number like $2.7 (million) of our bond issue is used to fund this capitalized interest.

Councilman Lester: And that’s $2.7 (million) of the total bond issue?

Mr. Livingtsone: Of the $40 (million)

Councilman Lester: Right. And you call that what now? Capital?

Mr. Livingstone: Capitalized interest.

Councilman Lester: Okay, so I guess I’m getting back - - - in 2007, irrespective of what the hotel makes, there is a number for debt service, correct?

Mr. Livingstone: Right.

Councilman Lester: What is that number for debt service in 2007?

Mr. Livingstone: It is something like $2,000,000.

Councilman Lester: So, in 2007, the debt service is $2,000,000?

Mr. Livingstone: Right.

Councilman Lester: So, in 2008, how much is the debt service?

Mr. Livingstone: $2,000,000.

Councilman Lester: Okay, alright. And so in this chart, it picks I guess in 2009?

Mr. Livingstone: Yeah, I think it actually picks up in 2008, but yes - - -

Councilman Lester: Well, I want to be accurate, because it’s not, as I appreciate it, I mean the line is 2008. So, is that 2009 or is that 2008?

Mr. Livingstone: The first part of the line is 2008.

Councilman Lester: Okay.

Mr. Livingstone: Which is the stabilized year.

Councilman Lester: I thought the stabilized year is 2009?

Mr. Livingstone: I’m sorry, yeah, the stabilized year is 2009. It starts in 2008.

Councilman Lester: Okay. So, the debt service and the number in the chart starts in 2008?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s correct.

Councilman Lester: And 2009 is the stabilized year?

Mr. Livingstone: Right.

Councilman Lester: Okay, so the debt service in 2007 is $2,000,000?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s right.

Councilman Lester: The debt service in 2008 is $2,000,000, correct?

Mr. Livingstone: Yep.

Councilman Lester: Okay, so that’s $4,000,000. Now, the capitalized interest is $2.7 (million)?

Mr. Livingstone: Right.

Councilman Lester: And that’s calculated for the first two years, correct?

Mr. Livingstone: (unclear) in that, but yeah.

Mr. Antee: I can give you an example. Using the PKF numbers not the higher HVS numbers, but with the PKF numbers in 2007, they have a net income after reserves and the reserves are FF&E and other reserves of $1,615,000.

Councilman Lester: Okay.

Mr. Antee: So, you get $2,000,000 in the capitalized interest. Now it won’t be $2,000,000 at that time, because we will have paid interest for a year from when they were sold. But of that money, that $400,000 would go with the $1.6 (million) to pay the debt service for that year. And in the year 2008, PKF predicts $1,958,000. So, of that, less than $2,000,000 of what’s already been taken out, the $42,000 would be used with that money to pay the debt service. Then in 2009, which is the year of stabilization, they project $3.245 (million) in that (unclear) which would be over and above the debt service of $2009 which is what David?

Mr. Livingstone: (unclear) in 2009, it does slightly over $2,000,000, it is $2,300,000.

Mr. Antee: So, it’s approximately the same amount.

Mr. Livingstone: Yeah, it doesn’t include the incremental tax exemption.

Mr. Antee: That’s right. That’s very, very important point. That does not include approximately $600,000 in year 7 and year 8. So, it’s very likely that - - - according to

Councilman Lester: So, you’re saying year 7, seven years (unclear) in a row? 2007. Okay.

Mr. Antee: So, if you take the incremental tax revenue that’s part of the ordinance and you add that to the 1.6, you would have net income to service debt of $2.2 (million) (unclear) if they could have $200,000 over and above which could then be put into debt service reserve for the rainy day. And then in 2008, we had the $600,000 to it, it’d be a half-million more than what debt service would be. So, whatever money was still left over in that capitalized interest could be used for putting into the debt service reserve or it would make sense at that point and time to do that, it could be used for upgrades, it could be used to help offset the cost of the operation of the convention center. It could be used for any number of things.

Councilman Lester: So, according to - - - and if we used the PKF numbers, 2007 based on their projection, the debt service of $2,000,000 would only have to be supplemented by $400,000?

Mr. Antee: Now, after you add in the tax revenues, then you would have a $200,000 surplus.

Councilman Lester: Okay, so based on the PKF projections, when you add in the $600,000 that’s projected in incremental taxes to their $1.6 (million) then you’re saying that you will have surplus of $200,000?

Mr. Antee: That’s correct.

Councilman Lester: Okay, and that $600,000 in incremental taxes, is that based on occupancy of 58% as was assumed in the HVS study?

Mr. Antee: That’s correct.

Mr. Livingstone: No, it would (unclear) a PKF study.

Councilman Lester: Right, right. Because I don’t have the PKF number. But what was the PKF occupancy number?

Mr. Antee: In 2006, that portion of the year that’s opened, they projected 56%. In 2007, they projected 61%, 2008 - 64% and that 61% at a $98 room rate.

Mr. Livingstone: And these same numbers that are (unclear) together.

Councilman Lester: So - - -.

Mr. Antee: And it puts it in perspective for you. The two non casino hotel downtown now for at the 61% or higher and just a little bit under the $98 room rate. And the $98 room rate is in 2006 dollars, not this year’s dollars.

Councilman Lester: What I would ask - - - go ahead.

Councilman Carmody: I’m sorry, I misunderstood that comment. The $98 is 2006?

Mr. Antee: 2006 dollars.

Councilman Carmody: Do you know what it is for 2004?

Mr. Livingstone: I think they used a 3% inflation rate, so you have to aspire to that.

Councilman Carmody: $60?

Mr. Livingstone: No, not that much.

Councilman Carmody: Again, I don’t have a calculator.

Mr. Antee: It would be 3% and that would put it at about a $87 current room rate.

Councilman Carmody: At 61%?

Mr. Antee: And about a month ago, we called for one of the downtown hotels to get their rate for Tuesday night and it was $89. Saturday night, it’s all calculated in as (unclear) average. Saturday night would be a lot higher in Shreveport. And that’s one of the reasons why PKF numbers are a little more conservative than HVS’. Because PKF has not put the real impact of weekend casino. They use more of the industry standard weekend rates for convention hotels, which are a lot lower, and they put a little of the impact that the casino, but not near as much as what’s actually being realized, which is close to 100% for all of downtown property.

Councilman Lester: Just as a suggestion, I would appreciate if I could get the HVS chart that they put together in terms of income and expenses from 2007 and 2016 and get some, maybe a transparency overlay or something that also had side by side like PKF, and HVS, if I could get that, I’d appreciate it.

Mr. Antee: What we’ll provide for the Council is a like you said, a side by side of the two charts that they have. Also what we will have coming to the Council is what citigroup has prepared in terms of the total financing future after debt service and this information.

Mr. Livingstone: Now for each of these lines that we showed up, but not up on screen anymore, it’s many pages of data.

Councilman Lester: Well, let me ask this question. The $2,000,000 debt service in 2007 and 2008, is that under your hybrid analogy or is that fixed?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s under the fixed rate case.

Councilman Lester: Okay, that’s under fixed?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s the worst case. That was the first one that I opened up. But if I was to do the same one for the hybrid, that number ends up being in what you were looking for?

Councilman Lester: Just the beginning. In 2007 and 2008.

Mr. Livingstone: Well in 2007, it’s $1.865 (million). In 2008, it’s $1.930.

Councilman Lester: Okay, so with the hybrid, obviously our debt service number is a lot better and assuming that the PKF numbers are the same, it’s much easier to make the debt service?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s correct. That was one of the reasons why the (unclear) that was the case (unclear) as well, the cost, it does entail as much risk is doing everything on the variable rate basis.

Councilman Lester: Now, the all variable rate would be a lesser (unclear)

Mr. Livingstone: That’s even more attractive, but you run the risk if rates spike, you bear that risk.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Livingstone: Although I would say that’s worked pretty well for you for the stadium.

Mr. Antee: (unclear) it would save right at $5,000,000.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Livingstone, I have a couple of questions for you. You’ve been talking about the rate, you just mentioned. I (unclear) projections that the Federal Reserve plans to raise the rates a quarter point for the next several months. In fact, this is an option for us, the variable rate case. Would you care to speculate on that or do you have any- - - I mean I’m not asking you to - - -

Mr. Livingstone: No, the reason why I smiled is that back in I don’t know, May or June, there was almost 100% unanimity of economist that rates were going up. And that’s when the Feds had their first 25 basis rate hike. And over the last three months, rates have dropped and dropped fairly significantly. We’re just about at a historic lows of the year, so it’s like in all the evidence that rates are going to be rising, but we could have said the same thing in June and we’re in a lower rate market.

Councilman Hogan: And also related to that is, how does that affect the variable, the component that we’re talking about, the tax free index? I mean - - -

Mr. Livingstone: Well, the tax free index moves almost in (unclear) steps. You know if the tax exempt rates will rise also. The move that these increases the Fed makes are increases in what they loan money on overnight basis. So, it’s extremely short term instrument. And that’s why you’ve seen on your stadium bonds, the rates have gone from like 1.1% up to 1.6%, but if you were to finance long, you know 10-15-20 years, rates have actually dropped, because that increase in the short term rates hasn’t necessarily impacted the long term market, if you understand what I’m saying.

Councilman Hogan: Well, somewhat I can see where you’re going with that. Another subject I’d like to get onto. Its back in the beginning on the first page, where you talked about tax exempt hotel financing experience. Could you comment on that with respect to the successful ones, you mentioned some of ‘em were successful, some of ‘em were not so successful. Could you comment on that related to what type of financial structures they had and also another concern I have which is not a great a concern as it was, since we got an opening statement in the HVS study clarifies (unclear) that a 300 room hotel is what our target should be. In fact there had been some, a lot of discussion there in the past, should it be 500, should it be even more than that. And so I had some degree of comfort in seeing this in the HVS study, but again, one of the chief things in your experience has been successful, are we close to the ratio of square footage for the facility versus the number of rooms?

Mr. Livingstone: You know, I’ve never looked at it that way, but I think probably roughly, like St. Louis, it’s a roughly 500,000 square foot convention center. In the hotel, there’s 1100 rooms, but Oberland Park, I think the convention center only a little bit bigger than yours and I think that has some number in the 400 or so rooms. But that’s something that we can look at, but frankly, I’d never looked at it quite that way. The McCormack Place won’t fit into that because that has I believe over 2,000,000 square feet space in it. And I’m trying to remember the size of the hotel. I think it’s less than 1,000 rooms?

Councilman Hogan: What has been your experience as far as HVS if any, as it relates to other projects? Is this the first time you’ve heard of HVS? Or have you seen their studies being backed up?

Mr. Livingstone: I would say that the two firms that we use most often doing such feasibility studies are PKF and HVS. HVS is very well known and very well established just like PKF.

Councilman Hogan: The first part of my question a moment ago was the ones that you’ve seen that have been successful, the financial structures, could you comment on that?

Mr. Livingstone: Well I mean, the McCormack Place for instance is being structured similarly to you meaning it’s owned by a municipal entity. This is (unclear) which is the City of Chicago and the (unclear) owns the McCormack Place. And they financed it backed by the hotel revenues. And that’s been successful. In St. Louis, it’s privately owned, but it was able to access tax exempt bonds through the fact that the hotel was in the (unclear) zone and the City put up something like $75,000,000 of that $250,000,000,000,000 facility in subordinated loans. But I think that whether it’s publicly owned or privately owned, what we found is we try to structure these things more conservatively, meaning used to be you’d finance them so that they had like 140 debt service coverage initially, and now we’re saying we want a 160 debt service coverage which provides some additional cushion, if revenues aren’t what we expect them to be. So, I think that it’s more than owner structure, it’s trying to come up with a conservative financing structure which can accommodate (unclear) travel market.

Mr. Antee: And if I may touch on that subject, some of the hotels, like Myrtle Beach, if you really get in and do the background and find out the history of that project, Oberland Park which was developed by Ray Garfield’s group, that’s submitted on this proposal, they were done prior to 9-11 and they were done with the financing structure that we first said we wanted to do for this one, like prior to the change in the market. And that was have strict new revenue bonds that the State’s capital outlay and the City only guaranteed what is called the Gap. That was the financial structure. The revenue bonds are a lot more expensive in an interest rate in the cost of issuance and all of those things, because you don’t have the full back stop of the City and the bond holders want more security and make sure that they’re going to be able to get their money back. Well, since 9-11, the Gap went from here to here and the revenue bonds went from here to here. So, at the advice of David and citigroup, and Gordon and Steve Holly and their group, they said that system has created problems because of the change in the market. Here’s a better way with full back stop of the City to lower your interest cost, lower your debt service requirement that’s necessary and minimize your risk because you’re putting money to the bottom line instead of more money in interest. And so, now Myrtle Beach is in the process, if they haven’t already done it, refinancing to the structure that they’re proposing to us. Oberland Park is in the process of doing that as well as some others. But we’ve had the benefit of not getting started prior to 9-11, so that we’ve learned from what happened to them on the best way to do our project. And that’s why we’ve come back with a full city back stop recommendation, or they’ve come back.

Mr. Livingstone: You know the thing is each of these projects, there is a story to be told. Like St. Louis for instance. That hotel is doing better than projected. It is a transient business. It’s doing better than expected and it’s leisure business, where it’s really getting hammered is in it’s convention business. Because it was projected and the head of the Convention and Visitors Bureau said this thing should, the convention increase, it should be about a million room nights of business in St. Louis generated by the convention center. It’s about half of that.

Mr. Antee: Tell ‘em one of the reason why that you were stating earlier.

Mr. Livingstone: Yeah, you know, what ends up happening is there is very strong manager or leader at the Convention and Visitors Bureau, who had brought it conventions. He left and went to Indianapolis. And in my estimation, the person they brought in was not somebody nearly as strong and that’s one of the reasons why to bring in somebody like SMG is a very good move.

Mr. Antee: And that facility is being managed by the City and the Convention and Tourist Bureau there in St. Louis. It’s not managed by SMG, which is a major difference.

Councilman Hogan: One last question. What is the term of the bonds? Are they- - - I know we talked about 20 years. It appears on the chart, that it’s in three year increments, and it’s a 30 year amortization. Is that right?

Mr. Livingstone: That’s right. It’s a 30 year amortization.

Councilman Hogan: That’s fine. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: $3.4 (million) that you referred to as a reserve for (unclear), excuse me as I lose my voice here, how long does that stay in place?

Mr. Livingstone: For the life of the bonds. (Unclear) thirty years. Actually if you look - - - well, you remember looking at that debt service chart that we looked at a couple of times?

Councilman Walford: Right.

Mr. Livingstone: Those little spike up in the last year, that is to incorporate the release of that reserve and then that reserve will come in as revenues - - -

Councilman Walford: Plus interest over the term.

Mr. Livingstone: Yes. But that spike is only the (unclear) of $3.4 odd-million.

Councilman Walford: So with the incremental tax revenue, we’ve always got, want to make sure I understand this, always got two years of payment in reserve?

Mr. Antee: Actually a little more than that.

Mr. Livingstone: I don’t think we’ve got two years of payments. $3,000,000. Problem is if you’re looking at debt service fund, debt service growth (unclear) that over time?

Councilman Walford: Okay.

Mr. Livingstone: So, it starts at $2,000,000 and ends at (let see here, I don’t know this stuff by hard).

Councilman Walford: But it ends at around, just under $3 (million), it looks like.

Mr. Livingstone: That’s right. Precisely. $3,000,000. So what we’ve basically (unclear) it for one year of maximum debt service, which ends up being a year and a half of debt service in the early years. Then plus you’ve got the $600,000 which is another few months of debt service. So, yeah it ends up being close to two years.

Councilman Walford: Good, thank you. And well, let me throw out one more thing. If the hotel maintains a positive cash flow and a net income, that too could be available for debt service?

Mr. Livingstone: Oh, absolutely. It is available, although I think that the way we’ve structured it now, is that gets released to the City. It could stay in there and used to pay on bonds. That’s a decision that (unclear).

Councilman Walford: Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Mr. Antee: If there are no other questions of Mr. Livingstone, a couple of items I do want to touch on. One being the issue as to whether or not it’s bid out to the private sector in the form of an RFP, when the Council voted not to go out to a formal RFP as you very well know, we did send out letters to people in the industry that do this type of work. We got a lot of responses. The vast majority of the responses were from people not wanting to come in and develop and own the hotel, but wanting to come in and operate the hotel. When explained to ‘em that we were looking for somebody to develop the hotel, they were no longer interested, although, they still wanted to come in an operate the hotel. We did have interest from one major player, that is in a position to do what some people say ought to be done and that is come in and develop and own the hotel. And that’s Omni. The Omni has just went through a formal RFP process with Ft. Worth. Ft. Worth was in the same type situation as we were in, in Shreveport. They had a convention center, except they had a convention center that had a hotel, but was an older downtown hotel, that had kinda run down. They wanted a new 1^st Class, Full Service hotel. They were looking at doing the same type of structure that we’re proposing to you. The politics in Ft. Worth came to be and the Mayor and City Council decided they’d go out to an RFP. Omni presented an RFP and was successful and worked out an arrangement with Ft. Worth. Now, what Omni wanted to build was a 400 room hotel, the City wanted a 600 room hotel, so Omni is building a 600 room hotel at a cost of $90,000,000. What they are getting from the City is $52,000,000 up to $90,000,000 to build that hotel. Now, they’re getting about $47,000,000 in the form of tax abatement on the property taxes. A 15% occupancy tax TIF, so for every $100 of room rate, Omni will receive, not the City, Omni will receive $15 for that room and that’s for a ten year period. They also receive the land for free and all of that totaled up to what they projected to be $47,000,000 of the $90,000,000 it was going to cost. Then in addition to that, Omni, the City is building a 400 car, $5,000,000 parking garage and giving it to Omni Corporation. Now Omni will own the hotel 100%. The only restriction that Omni has they cannot sell the hotel at least until two years after it’s opened. After that, they can sell it. With very limited restrictions as to the financial suitability of the buyer. But they can sell it much similar to our casinos. Now I know that because I looked at that proposal, I met with (unclear) Johnson, who was the Vice-President at Omni that put the deal together. He told me that they were interested in putting an Omni here in Shreveport, but he said it had to be at least what we would see in Ft. Worth for it to be worth it to us. Now, they take 100% of the risk, but they also own it free and clear. With the taxpayers and the taxes putting up $52,000,000 of a $90,000,000 project. We would have many people on this project interested in doing just that. And major hotel developer would, then here’s the problem that we have with that. We can’t give ‘em a 15% TIF on all the taxes. We can give them the $12,000,000 in capital outlay money. We can give ‘em through a long term lease, the land, we could work within some confines of reduced property taxes, but they had zero property tax. Here, they’d still have to pay the Sheriff’s property tax, the School Board’s property tax, State unless State waived their property tax, the Caddo Levy Board, the Red River Waterway Commission, all of those things. So, the property taxes that we could give ‘em are small when you look at your property tax bill. We’re not in a position to do that. Nor does the Mayor think that the taxpayers should give that much to a private entity. We caught all kind of flack from all of the hotels, not all of ‘em, but from a few hotel owners on trying to get a TIF on the fact that we don’t have to pay property taxes. On the fact that the City is gonna guarantee it. We caught all kind of grief problems. Just think how much grief we would get from Mr. Shelby Smith and rightfully so, Mr. John Turner and others if we’re going to say, here’s you a $52,000,000 convention center and oh, by the way, we’re giving you $30-35,000,000 to go do it. At least in this case, the citizens and the taxpayers of Shreveport are going to benefit from the up side. The profit that can be shown by PKF, and especially if HVS is correct, that money can go right back into the convention center, and help offset what it is going to cost to run the convention center. A couple of other items we want to address. There’s been a lot of rumors and innuendos out there about what this hotel really is. First of all, it’s going to be public bid. I want to put those rumors to rest. It’d be a publicly bid project. There is no contract out there, nor are there any contracts anticipated with anybody in particular that some of the rumors are the subject of. The Hotel Trust Authority is subject to the open records law, and is subject to audit by the City as well as the State Internal Auditor. The only contract to operate the hotel, which includes any concessions or any restaurants or anything like that is with HRI Lodging. Eddie Boatner is here today to answer any questions about the operations of the hotel. Any contract or subcontract to HRI would come through the Hotel Trust Authority which would be fully opened to public inspection or public ridicule or whatever else. So, this is not being put out there, so I can pick whose gonna run the concessions or the Mayor can pick or whatever else. I know Councilman Gibson is kinda snickering over there, because that’s the source of where a lot of this is coming from. It’s all going to be above board, it’s all going to be in open meetings and anybody can attend to watch how any of these are going to be evaluated. The schedule of it, we anticipate the design to be complete in February. We’ll have - - - go to public bid in March and hopefully start construction in late April or early May of next year. And Mayor, did you want to talk about the amendment?

Mayor Hightower: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if that’s alright.

Councilman Jackson: Just tell me what amendment we’re talking about.

Mayor Hightower: The public vote amendment.

Councilman Jackson: Well, what I’d prefer to do is wait until we reach that point on the agenda and then the Mayor can talk about it at that time, for fear that we may spark discussion at this point, when we should probably appropriately have it at another point.

Mr. Antee: That’s fine. Are there any other questions regarding the financing of the hotel, the feasibility of the hotel or what our intent for this hotel is.

Councilman Jackson: Councilmen, are there any other questions? Mr. Antee, let me just say to those who came from the different organizations, who did come, thank you. And for those who have listened and labored through listening, to all of our comments or what have you. I just want to say thank you because they’ve been - - - you know there’s always a picture of doom and gloom that’s painted, but then there’s a picture of all the best case scenarios. Fortunately, the truth generally lies somewhere there in the middle. And that makes me feel comfortable that I don’t buy into the doom and gloom and the crystal ball, can you tell us 20 years from now, nobody can. And I also don’t buy into it’s the best thing since sliced bread. So, somewhere in the middle, I think the citizens can certainly appreciate that, there is probably truth somewhere in the middle. So, thank you all for that presentation.

Councilman Lester: Are we now going to hear from HRI?

Mr. Boatner: I represent HRI and HRI Lodging. I have been selected and contracted by the City and the Hotel Authority to develop and then to manage the hotel once it is opened. I brought with me just some information. It was said that there were some question of what contracts had been let. At this point and time, the only contracts that have been let by HRI was to PKF to do the market study. And by HCI Construction and Design for the design consultants that are working on designing the hotel. Those would be Slack, Alost, McSwain as the exterior design architect (unclear) mechanical and electrical and plumbing engineer. (Unclear) engineering. It’s a civil engineer. (Unclear) engineering for structural. HVS (unclear) for interior design and a company called Max (unclear) which will be the kitchen designer. One contract let to (unclear) for landscape design and that is yet to be determined. Once we get into hotel operations, I’ve made a list of I think 18 different areas where we will be contracting with local entities if at all possible for some or all of these services. And they range every where from lawn care. The local banking, liquor and wine suppliers, audio-visual rentals, transportation suppliers, marketing and advertising, parking and valet services. I’ve got a list of 18 different items as a partial list of what the hotel is going to have to buy under it’s hotel operations. At this point, my job is to work with the architects and the engineers to keep the project on schedule and on or under budget. To work with the gentlemen from citigroup, Mr. Livingstone, Mr. Holly from his firm and with the City to make sure that we’re getting the financing done and that we’ve got everything in place so that we make or put forth the most effective and efficient financing method for this project. But if we can get about the business of building it, and then put heads in beds.

Councilman Gibson: Outside of Slack Alost McSwain, design professionals, how many of them are local?

Mr. Boatner: I’m not sure what the locations are of these others. They’re in the State of Louisiana, and I will tell you that as it relates to Fair Share compliance, on the consultants at HCI Construction and Design, has hired, we have exceeded the Fair Share goal of 25%.

Councilman Gibson: I can appreciate the Fair Share, but how much are local in terms of design work being done in Shreveport?

Mr. Antee: We have that broken down in my office and I’ll get that to you.

Mr. Boatner: I’ve got that in another place in this file. The locations for those people?

Councilman Gibson: Specifically, I’m asking in terms of design work being done in Shreveport, not where an office is being set up.

Mr. Boatner: To my knowledge none of these firms have set up an office specifically in Shreveport to be doing this work.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, so we’ve narrowed that down in terms of what in participation?

Mr. Boatner: The largest one obviously is Slack Alost McSwain.

Councilman Gibson: I understand that. The other question that I have is regarding the hotel services, tell me the process that’s going to take place for linens and food and beverage and all that other stuff?

Mr. Boatner: The hotel operator will determine what the needs are and will solicit proposals from all qualified individuals and companies.

Councilman Gibson: Is that on a competitive basis?

Mr. Boatner: Absolutely.

Councilman Gibson: You going to share that information with this Council?

Mr. Boathner: Absolutely.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just to piggy back on, just a few questions. HCI was hired as the design consultants, correct?

Mr. Boatner: No sir. HCI is the lead architect for the project.

Councilman Lester: Lead architect. Okay, and HCI, is HCI a division of HRI, or there is an inter-relation between the two?

Mr. Boatner: Yes sir.

Councilman Lester: And after HCI was hired, then HCI hired Slack Alost McSwain as the architect?

Mr. Boatner: As a consulting architect. And there is a particular division of responsibilities that goes with each of the consultants, a particular scope of work that they are required to perform and under a particular schedule that they perform that work and under which they are paid.

Councilman Lester: Now, did this process go through the normal A&E selection or was that something that was decided by you, HRI, the hotel operator.

Mr. Boatner: The hotel operator’s got nothing to do with who the architect selects to do the work. The architect is charged with the responsibility of building a first class product that is going to stand and stand for many, many years to come. And their responsibility and their charge is to the architecture, construct ability and the overall cost of this project.

Councilman Lester: Let me ask this question. By what process was Slack Alost McSwain was selected. Was there a competitive RFP put out on the street or how did that process work?

Mr. Boatner: There was not an RFP put out on the street.

Councilman Lester: RFQ?

Mr. Boatner: Our architectural team evaluated Slack Alost and others and determined that Slack was the most capable of performing the services required or the services that we wanted them to provide on this particular project.

Councilman Lester: Okay, so the decision to go with Slack Alost McSwain was a decision that was made by HCI, is that correct?

Mr. Boatner: That’s correct.

Mr. Antee: If I could (inaudible) record for the Convention Center has the responsibility for the exterior primarily of the building so that they fit together and they’re not - - -

Mr. Boatner: Not only do they fit together physically, but they fit together ecstatically that the connections all work, there’s a tremendous amount of coordination that has to happen between a Convention Center on this piece of property and a hotel on an adjacent piece of property, if you look at nothing other than the code requirements to have ingress and egress between these two separate pieces of property owned by two separate people.

Councilman Lester: Well let me ask this question – so it sounds like there was never any consideration given to anyone else, I mean given the fact that Slack Alost MsSwain had already designed the Convention Center, it was almost it sounds like a preemption that they were going to be selected as the design consultant as the consultant on the hotel.

Mr. Boatner: That’s not completely correct.

Mr. Antee: We did when HRI was selected as the developer as well as when Garfield and associates were submitting their proposal for the Marriot hotel, we did and the Mayor emphasized to them, we will have local participation, we will adhere to the Fair Share plan. What took place once HRI was selected and HCI was selected to be the lead architect, they went out and provided a list of people that had the experience and had met the qualification and submitted the list as to here’s who we recommend that some where taken off and some where added to and then with the help and input of the Mayor, then the final team was put together with the exception of landscape architect.

Councilman Lester: And that team included; HCI, Slack (inaudible), and the people that you listed to us earlier? But that was no other process in terms of the normal channels as far as solicitation and things of that nature. Basically, what I’m hearing is HRI was selected as the operator and turned around and hired itself and the design consultant or lead out architect – okay.

Mr. Antee: HRI, was hired as the developer consultant, and I don’t want to say developer because in the general sense the developer has an equity interest in it.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Mr. Antee: They were just hired to walk us through the process from wanting one to owning one. And their division HCI, which they obviously, have a close working relationship and close control over is the lead architect but have a couple of members to the team.

Councilman Lester: Well let me ask this question. Were the ever any thought from HRI’s concern that anyone other than HCI was going to be the lead architect?

Mr. Antee: Well, there were other architects that were soliciting to try and Slack Alost McSwain obviously being one of them, and you others that I cant remember who, but in order to move the project in the most and what we felt like was the – and what the Hotel Trust Board felt like was the most prudent way to go with HCI, who obviously has close working relationship with HRI being the division of them by having experience in doing hotel design and bring in the others, I know set the hand engineering is local and I’d have to go back and look at some of the others, but bringing in some of the local guys in addition to Slack Alost.

Councilman Lester: Okay, let me ask question. What is the process – first of all let me back up a little bit. What before when you were here and I’m talking about Mr. Boatner, we, myself, Councilman Jackson, and I believe Councilman Green, lays a question as to I believe Fair Share, when we ask a question in as much as HRI is not a local concern in as much as HRI has operations outside the state and in other places out of Shreveport. We asked the question about what was your track record in terms of procurement and Fair Share, and maybe for one reason or another that was not communicated because the information that we got back from you

and SMG, was these are the number of people that work for us and things of that nature. So, let me start off where I stopped, I’m going to again, ask for specific information relative to your other properties; St. Louis, New Orleans, and wherever HRI is operating. In terms of the hotel that you guys have developed and the hotel that you manage either through HRI, HCI, what have you done in terms of Fair Share, in terms of minorities – African Americans, in terms of women and things of that nature? And I would like that in writing.

Mr. Boatner: Okay.

Councilman Lester: Okay, my next question is, I heard you indicate that there were eithteen areas of contracting that you were going to be soliciting from the local area.

Mr. Boatner: Yes sir.

Councilman Lester: Is that 18 areas that – how do I ask this question? Does this 18 areas for contracting represent the subtotal of the procurement that is being contemplated by HRI, or is this just what you guys have determined that you are going to go out for locals?

Mr. Boatner: This is a partial list of the goods and services that need to be contracted to operate an hotel.

Councilman Lester: Okay.

Mr. Boatner: I did not spend an extensive amount of time with my hotel operating manager, because he’s working on opening a hotel in New Orleans tomorrow, and he’s up to his ears in alligators as they say. I went through this looking at hotel performers and with my knowledge and experience, did I get everything in here? I know I didn’t, so if I’ve got 18 areas listed there are more.

Councilman Lester: I would like to see, and I’m sure the council would like to see a comprehensive list of procurement needs for the contemplated hotel, in writing, if I could?

Mr. Boatner: I can do that and give you the general categories, yes sir.

Councilman Lester: I’d appreciate that.

Mr. Boatner: Okay.

Councilman Lester: Now, my next question is. What if any is your plan for accomplishing goals of fair share? I mean are you going to have a point person, is there someone in the confines of HRI, just like here in the City we have an office and point person that is charged with the responsibility of making sure that ever single contract that comes across the City’s desk before it’s signed by the Mayor is Fair Share compliant. My question is do you have such a person, and if you don’t have a person, do you have a plan for exactly how you are going to meet Fair Share programs in the procurement?

Mr. Boatner: In other properties and other location we have the compliance as part of the general managers’ responsibilities and overseeing by the head of our property management and hotel division.

Mr. Antee: And in addition to that Councilman Lester, as we’re doing with SMG we will make available our Fair Share office to work in conjunction with them since it is a division of the City.

Councilman Lester: Well, let me ask this question, cause that leads to my next question. There’s a difference between making something available and requiring something, in terms of right now in the City, if this was a completely City owned facility there would be no question rather or not Fair Share would have to apply, because each and every contract would have to have a compliance record that says, yes this contract is Fair Share compliant before it signs off with the Mayor. And as I appreciate it, and I’ve asked for an opinion on this, cause this entity is as I appreciate it, somewhat owned by the City, and somewhat owned by actually, I think technically, by I think the hotel is going to be owned by the public trust correct?

Mr. Antee: That’s correct.

Councilman Lester: Okay, but my question is, what assurances does the councilman, like myself, that is very concerned with Fair Share, what assurances do I have that we are going to follow this, because I understand, we have a situation where we know in the City this is something that needs to be done and this Administration has done a yeomen’s job of making sure that’s done. But then we have, and no disrespect to attendant, Mr. Boatner, we have someone from out of town has been told that it’s important, but if it’s not required then, huh.

Mr. Antee: It’s definitely required in the contract with HRI, Lodging contract, and in the HRI Lodging as well with the HCI contract, all of them have a provision in there where they have to comply with the City’s Fair Share ordinance. So, it is required in their contract, and if I’m not mistaken and I think Ms. Glass or Mr. Thompson can go back and check, but if I’m not mistaken when the hotel trust was set up I think there was an amendment at that time, Mayor do you recall –I think there was an amendment

Mayor Hightower: I think there may have been.

Mr. Antee: That stated that the trust had to operate within the Fair Share ordinance as well. So, your points well taken and it is required in the contract and will be required and we can use our Fair Share office to help us oversee and make sure – just like we do in every other city contract.

Councilman Lester: So, am I to understand that your representation to me and to this Council, and to the citizens of the City, is that each and every contract is going to be Fair Share compliant, quite obviously to the existent that it can be?

Mr. Antee: Correct. The same as our Fair Share ordinance that’s in effect right now, I mean obviously, you know, when they buy chemicals for the pool, or electricity, but it will be fully complied and required to comply with the City’s Fair Share ordinance, it is not it will be it is by contract.

Councilman Lester: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Carmody: One quick question.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Carmody.

Councilman Carmody: Mr Boatner, I appreciate you being here one quick though. HRI, has no equity position in the hotel, correct? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: All right. Mr. Mayor, I know that SMG, is not here today this is HRI , but I believe the last time they were here, we’d asked for some specific information, not to dissimilar to what Councilman Lester has asked for again, in regards to that. We got some information, but it wasn’t what we asked for. It showed some kind of employment number or something like that, but that wasn’t what we asked for and so, just out of courtesy, if perhaps you could remind them that we need that before we take a different approach to moving forward, that we need to get that information. I can’t speak for other Councilmen, but I don’t feel comfortable moving forward absent that information.

Mr. Antee: Mr. Chairman, we do have Mike Carrier, I’m sure or I think all of y’all have met Mike, who is the SMG. He’s the General Manager of the Convention Center that is now fully on board and full-time employed for the City of Shreveport Convention Center.

Councilman Jackson: Who is that?

Councilman Lester: C’mon on down!

Mr. Antee: In the process of the pre-opening phase, bringing on employees and (unclear) 40 openings, and if you recall about two or three months ago, a question was brought up about the information that SMG had provided was not exactly what y’all had requested, and I asked at that time, if you could get me specifically in writing what it is that you wanted, because there was a mis-communication when Mr. Thornton was here. And y’all were going at one thing and he thought it was something else. So, if you would get it to me, I would get it to him and get them to respond. I’m sure that they are very responsive in answering any and all questions. So, I wrote down basically what Councilman Lester wants from HRI, which is Fair Share (unclear) numbers from other properties, and the list of procurement needs of what will be needed. And I’ll forward those two items as stated there to Mr. Thornton in Philadelphia, which is SMG’s home office.

Councilman Jackson: Well, that’s SMG, (unclear) asked them.

Mr. Antee: That’s what I’m trying to - - - .

Councilman Jackson: Let me tell you. I’d have to go back to the minutes specifically, but I can tell you and my best recollection, it was about what you’re already doing, but in places like Shreveport- - -

Councilman Lester: And Bossier City.

Councilman Jackson: Particularly Bossier City, since you do have a record, a track record in Bossier City, then what are you doing from a business perspective. And I’m talking about employment, I’m talking about from a business contract perspective in other areas, not necessarily comparable just to Shreveport with regards to demography, but areas where you have other convention centers that you operate and also, more specifically Bossier City. It had been requested from HRI, some information with regards to the buildings that already been built in Shreveport and I think they communicated the information with some of the folks that they use in Shreveport on a couple of these apartments or whatever they are. I think that was another request, I’m not sure whether or not Councilman Lester ever received that or any other Councilman for that matter.

Mr. Antee: We have the response on the other buildings that he submitted on May 20^th and I’ll get that to you.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Boatner, you might be able to answer this, cause it might be included in y’all’s contract for the management of the hotel. What is the, is there a stipulation as to how HRI is to report back to the City of Shreveport (unclear) regarding the occupancy, the incoming expenses of the hotel? I mean will that be something that will be done every two weeks to the Council? Or will HRI report to the Hotel Trust Authority?

Mr. Boatner: My understanding is that we would report to the Trust Authority and that reporting is done on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis.

Mr. Antee: And as long as we’re here, we’ll commit that, that is forwarded to the Council.

Councilman Jackson: Any other questions? Now there are some folks from PKF as I appreciate it?

Mr. Antee: No, there’s nobody from HVS or PKF. They basically submitted their report.

Councilman Carmody: One last observation, not really a question. Council and Administration has spent an awful lot of time on this proposed hotel, but I’m trying to garner a lesson out of this for those of us who consider ourselves in a post graduate course of Political Science. It appears to me that any community that’s looking to do a convention center project should diligently pursue the hotel prior to committing to building a convention center. And I guess that was hoping that the PKF gentleman could address. In that they led our municipal horse to water, we’re now drinking with the premise that if we built and the public supported our convention center, the private sector would step in and want to build this hotel. That, unfortunately, has not been the situation. Well, again it’s not so much a question as it is an observation, we’re left with dealing with pieces of the equation now. Because the variables have changed. And we’re trying to make the best of it. But I will tell you, this is not my expertise, in building hotels or managing hotels. I don’t know that it’s the Administration’s expertise. But, it’s a difficult thing now in hind sight when we’re trying, as I say, some of this ought to be continuing education in finance, in my opinion. Because it’s kinda outside of what the scope of the public service that I thought I’d be doing for the City. So, again that’s my observation. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Antee: Mr. Chairman, if I may in regards to that, you’re exactly right. That’s not our expertise. That’s why we go out and get the best people in the business to come in and do it. And as far as back in 1999, when the convention center was brought forward, you were the only person on the Council at the time, so only you would know the answer to your own question. Obviously from 1999 to today, a lot changed in terms of the public/private. But back in 1999, when this went to the voters, it was told that we would be working for a public/private partnership in the hotel, but it was always stated and that anybody that knew anything about convention centers and convention center hotels, always stated that you would not have a private developer come in and completely build and develop a hotel. It’d have to be a public and private partnership. What we have now is - - - .

Councilman Carmody: But the public’s contribution would actually be the land upon which the private hotelier would construct a hotel adjacent to our publicly built and financed convention center. Am I mistaken?

Mr. Antee: And that’s correct. (Unclear) and there were other things such as tax abatements, and things that a municipality could submit to it. But when what the City has to give to get the private enterprise in to come in and do that, at some point in time, you reach a point in diminishing returns to where you’re giving away the farm which is what Ft. Worth did in order to get what they wanted and was a hotel. And now, whose gonna profit and benefit from it? The Omni Group, because they’re going to own a $90,000,000 project with more than 55% of it paid by somebody else and they get the entire benefit of the upside. So, we could do that, but is that’s what’s best for the taxpayers, and that’s where there may be a difference of opinion.

Councilman Carmody: And that’s true, because now what we’re talking about is mortgaging the farm.

Mr. Antee: No, we’re talking about putting up a guarantee.

Councilman Carmody: (unclear) but in essence the City is now what we originally were told or projected as being a gap. What the City would be looking to realistically have to back stop has escalated from $3-8,000,000 depending on where we were talking. And now, $40,000,000. Is that not correct?

Mr. Antee: That is correct.

Councilman Carmody: I would call that mortgaging the farm.

Mr. Antee: Well, if you listen to PKF, if you listen to the experts that y’all as a Council, that Councilman Gibson brought to the table, you’re making money and not spending money. (Unclear) and we could back and forth all day long.

Councilman Carmody: (Unclear) as well, I’d like to be optimistic.

Mr. Antee: But the issues are clear. It comes down to, all the information is out there. It’s been batted back and forth for years now. It’s decision making time. And we’re here and if there’s any additional information, if there’s any additional questions, I’m committed to you that if y’all’d get me the questions, I’ll get it to these individuals, I’ll get it to whoever else, PKF, HVS, whoever and we’ll get ‘em back to you as soon as we can. So, it’s time to make a decision and go on. And you can study all semester for that final, but when the day comes to take the final, you’ve got to take it. In two weeks, we’ll be at the day to take the final.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you Mr. Antee. Let me just say that I want to move on and get back to the agenda. I’m just afraid, next we’ll be looking in crystal balls and figuring out how the Saints can win the Super Bowl one year. But you know for right now, these discussions while they are good, a lot of them are hind sight discussions that are not profitable to the people in this City unless they are somebody in another municipality listening, they’re the only ones who can benefit at this time from these discussions. So, I’d ask Councilman Green, you had a comment?

Councilman Green: Yes sir. Is it okay if I make it?

Councilman Jackson: Yes sir.

Councilman Green: I’d just like to say Mr. Chairman, that the ground work for what we are talking about was not made by this Council. It was made by the previous Council. So what they were thinking at that time, we don’t know. But we do know what we know now. We’ve paid $48,000 for some paper and for some experts to tell us whether or not we need a hotel next door to the convention center. That’s what we paid for. And now, we’ve brought ‘em back and whatever they tell us, now we’re going to pick holes in it, to say we want some more. And I think that’s unfair. My question is are you all still on the clock? Are we paying y’all for today too?

Mr. Antee: No.

Councilman Green: Oh, good. Cause we’ve already spent $48,000 and we got this paper now, so the question is what are we going to do with $48,000. That’s what we got. I guess everybody got their package, so the question is, we got $48,000 and I think that either we’re going to take the baby with the bath water or we’re going to throw one of ‘em out. I think what we’ve got to do is make a decision as to what we’re going to do. And I hate to say this, but I gotta say it. We’ve got to take a Bossier City attitude and stop studying so much and just do it. If not, we’re going to be left way behind, and that’s what we need to do. We’ve got to study. Now, it seems as though we mad because y’all brought us the study back. I’m just wondering if you all had brought a study that said we don’t need a hotel. We probably would have had to call the Chief, to get his tasers to get y’all out of here. But whatever it be, and I just think that at some point, we’re going to have to take politics out of this stuff and take care of some business. We’ve been here since 3:00 and we have not moved. I mean we’re on the same thing and we’re just thinking of some questions to ask. And I just wonder if we would in fact ask the same questions if we were not on television. I wonder if in fact, if we had started at 3:00, if we were not on TV, would we still have y’all out here asking questions. So, I just think that it’s gonna come a time that we gotta get politics out of this stuff and do what we need to do. Again I’ll say, if you bought a house, and I’m sure most of us in here bought a house, we had a price of saying $100,000. We say how long? 30 years. At the end of 30 years, we paid more than what we bargained to pay because of the interest and whatever. So therefore, but we didn’t go through this process with the lenders and we didn’t get a committee, we just saw the house. This is the one we want, so sign us up. So, I just think up here, we’ve got to get the Tic and we got to get the Poli out, and just become elected officials and do what is right for the citizens what we said. And stop going back to our little groups, making ourselves look good and we gotta group over here, and we got a group over there. If we’re were going to do that, we should have just paid our groups, got our groups together to come up with a solution and it’s a sad day that it’s 5:35 almost and we still on the same thing that we paid some folk to bring us the information back. Now, that they’ve brought the information back, we’ve become the experts. And saying "well, what about this"? Well, why didn’t we just give you all a list of questions that we wanted answered to put into the report and say this is what we want answered. Now answer this, and then we’ll be okay. And I just think that we got to take care of business better and stop just going through rhetoric. Because I apologize to y’all. I didn’t vote for the report myself, because I knew all the time that we needed a hotel. So, if you want to know who the genius of this bunch is, it’s me. I’m finished Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Carmody: I’d like to make a motion that we suspend the rules to receive public comments at this time.

Councilman Green: Well we’re at Public Comments anyway.

Councilman Jackson: No, these are not, second, these are not public comments with regard to what’s on the agenda.

Councilman Carmody: That’s correct.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Jackson to suspend the rules to receive Public Comments. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Carmody, Gibson, and Jackson. 3. Nays: Councilmen Walford, and Green. 2. Out of the Chamber: Councilmen Lester and Hogan. 2.

Councilman Walford: Point of Order Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Yes.

Councilman Walford: That takes a two-thirds vote. It would take five votes to suspend the rules.

Councilman Jackson: Two-thirds of what?

Councilman Walford: Two-thirds of the Council.

Councilman Carmody: The City Council, he’s right.

Councilman Walford: It takes five votes Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Not two-thirds of the quorum that exist?

Councilman Walford: Ms. Glass can confirm that if - - -

Councilman Jackson: She’s not here.

Councilman Green: It takes five votes. Here comes Ms. Glass.

Councilman Jackson: Ms. Glass, there is a question about a suspension of the rules. I had a motion by Councilman Carmody, to suspend the rules to hear three Public Comments at this point. Motioned and seconded, the vote was 3 yea, 2 nay. Councilman Walford has called Point of Order with regards to the requisite number of votes being three-fifths?

Ms. Glass: Two-thirds?

Councilman Jackson: I’m sorry, two-thirds. And the question was, was it two-thirds of the Council or two-thirds of those present?

Ms. Glass: On suspension of the rules- - -

Councilman Jackson: It would make sense (unclear) we are suspending the rules.

Ms. Glass: I’d have to (unclear)

Councilman Jackson: Would I be correct in suggesting that in a situation where it’s vague, that the Chair has the option of ruling?

Ms. Glass: Actually, that is correct. The Chairman has the judgement call and if any member wants - - -

Councilman Jackson: Sure. Our first speaker will be Ms. Laura Goodwin.

Laura Goodwin: (900 Jordan Street) I’m the Executive Director of Volunteers for Youth Justice, located at 900 Jordan Street in Shreveport. And I will be brief. I’m here today to thank you and offer my appreciation for the financial support provided by the City (unclear) organization to provide juvenile diversion programming for Caddo Parish. If you will allow me, I’d like to highlight our accomplishments briefly over the last year. Over 1,300 early juvenile offenders from Caddo Parish with the vast majority of those residing in Shreveport, were referred into Volunteers for Youth Justice Diversion Program. 95% of those avoided a further offense during the year in which they successfully completed the program. A (unclear) rate of only 5%. These programs which include Teen Court and JUMPSTART Workshops provide the only early intervention in Caddo Parish, specifically designed for juvenile offenders. As you develop your budget for 2005, I’m aware that you have many difficult decisions to make as you (unclear) the City’s needs, I beg you to make these children in crisis a priority. Without this early intervention and support, many young people in our community may continue violating the law, creating an additional burden on an already over burdened juvenile justice system. And likely increasing the burdens just a few years down the road on the Adult Criminal Justice and Welfare System. Multiple funding sources for Volunteers for Youth Justice Diversion Program, such as Louisiana Bar Foundation and the Commission on Law Enforcement are designed to decrease and diminish over time, for the purpose of encouraging local communities to support worthy projects. We are now at a critical point in transition, but we must seek increased community support. For this reason, Volunteers for Youth Justice have submitted a request for the City of Shreveport’s Community Grant Program for $35,000 for the 2005 fiscal year. For your information, comparable requests have also been submitted to the Parish Commission and District Attorney’s Office. With such a community partnership, similar to the one that exist in Bossier Parish, these important programs can continue. Whenever we have the opportunity to tell folks about Volunteers for Youth Justice, I also provide program and success stories, but today, I have a real live success story for you. I’d like to introduce you to my friend Latrika. Latrika’s given me permission to tell you that she came to us after being involved in juvenile court. After completing her sentence, she was assigned a mentor in VYJ (unclear) program, known as GEMS. As you listen to what Latrika has to say, and how she has been affected by her involvement with Volunteers for Youth Justice, please consider that there are thousands of other children just like her involved in the Court System, full of potential and just waiting for someone to help them see it.

Latrika: Hi my name is Latrika and I’ve been in GEMS every since April. I’m really enjoying myself. I had problems at home and at school just because I chose to hang with the wrong group of girls and follow behind them, just because I thought there was no one around to care for me. Since I’ve been in GEMS, I’m making the grades that will help me get out of school. I think GEMS is a fun learning program for every teenage female that is having problems in school. We all trust each other in GEMS. We all share things that we would be embarrassed about, but it would never go out of the group. I think GEMS (unclear) and girls. I think that it would change how the way other females ace and help them to become a better teenager.

Laura Goodwin: Thank you and we’d be pleased to answer any questions that any of you may have.

Councilman Lester: I would just like to tell Latrika, congratulations for making a choice to do something different. You are to be congratulated. And I think I can speak for all of the Councilmen in saying we are very proud of you and keep up the good work. Personally, I’ve been very familiar with Volunteers for Youth Justice through my work at Caddo Parish Juvenile Court Indigent Defender’s Office, and I know they do an extremely good job. But I just wanted to tell you, keep up the good work and we’re very proud of you and we’re very supportive of Volunteers for Youth Justice. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Let me say to you Ms. Goodwin as well as the young lady that is with us, that you all have done, I say you all. I formerly served on the Board of Directors for Volunteers for Youth Justice and I’ve had lots of occasions to attend Teen Court sessions and those kinds of things. And I want you, and I heard just today about a reduction in money for Teen Court Project and those kind of things, and one of the things that we do when we come to the Council, very often the City is seen as a resource to receive funds, but one of the things that I think is not recognized very often is that these individuals all around this dais also represent citizens influence out in the community. So, I’d like to ask these gentlemen, because the City in it’s limited money can’t be a panacea for all the change that we need in the City of Shreveport, but we have a responsibility and a part to play. Our resources limit us often with how much we can do. And I think all of us have some degree or level of influence that will help. My commitment is not necessarily only the City commitment, but to continue to help Volunteers for Youth Justice in other ways external to the City as well.

Laura Goodwin: We appreciate any support you can offer. As you might imagine, the state of Juvenile Justice as a whole is really in crisis in Caddo Parish and our organization is the only non-profit organization that provides services to these children and families. And the burden on our organization is only going to increase with reduced resources of Juvenile Court. The crisis that we face is real and I would not be here it were otherwise. And I ask you to please recognize the value of an investment in this program and the quality of life in Shreveport, I believe is basic. And I don’t think there’s any more important thing to invest in than a young person like Latrika. Thank you so much.

Councilman Carmody: I make just one request of you. I’m not familiar with the budgeting process of this other entities that y’all have solicited or made application to for funds, but could I ask that you would communicate back to the Council prior to our budget hearings what response you have received from those other organizations as well, so that we will have that information.

Laura Goodwin: I will. I believe they operate on much the same time line.

Councilman Carmody: I’m almost positive that they do in concert, but, if you could let us know please.

Laura Goodwin: I would be happy to. And I do have some information that I’d like to leave with you and I’ll let you review at your leisure.

Councilman Walford: I would just like to thank the young lady for sharing with us.

Laura Goodwin: Isn’t she brave?

Councilman Walford: She is.

Councilman Lester: Very brave.

Councilman Walford: I just want to commend her for doing that.

Councilman Jackson: And for being very patient. She didn’t go to sleep at all.

Laura Goodwin: And I do want to thank you for allowing us to get on your agenda. She needs to get home and babysit, so her grandmother can go to work. And you got us at the perfect time so she can do that. So, thank you very much. We are very proud of her.

Andre Carter: (5312 Alto Vista) And my comments today are Mr. Green, you brought up that house scenario, and that’s what I’m doing. I purchased a house in a I guess a questionable neighborhood. Since I’ve been in this neighborhood, it has been improving, but I might have been here about a year and a half ago about some problems and situations I was having with people and persons that were trying to overt the progress of the neighborhood I’m living in. So now I have an even greater problem. I have people that moved across the street from me and this group of people have no regard to personal property. They have no respect. They vandalize, they steal, and also they litter. And I’ve called basically about every institution, every organization in this City that I’m aware of and I’m getting basically the same results. There is nothing we can do. So, I’m here today to see if I can search a little further and find somebody or some people who can do something about my situation. Now, I have loss and damages over $800 that I had to pay out of my pocket to replace a back window out of my vehicle. I have had to clean up countless of times porcelain flower pots, bottles, pipe wrenches, all this stuff out of my yard, because the age of these juveniles, they say they can’t arrest them or the juvenile system if flooded. These are the results I get and if I’m aware, I thought that parent accountability was on the books, but I’m not sure if it is or not. But my deal is we might need to go after the responsible adults if there are some in a situation like this, since can’t nobody do anything to the juveniles and minors who are involved in these atrocious acts of violence and theft, disturbing the peace. I mean, they have radios on top of the roof and they throw shingles off their roof into my yard, but yet there is nothing to be done about this. And Mr. Green, if I may ask you a question. I called your office as well. Did you get in touch with the Chief, to see whether or not he had a plan?

Councilman Green: I called the police officer and they are going to get back with me with some information. As I did speak to you, I asked you to give me a little time to work it out. Of course you committed to giving me that time to work it out and we are still working on it. I had a meeting with the Chief on Friday at my office. Of course, I called it in, so, if you give me the ample time that you had committed to, hopefully, I can come up with a solution.

Andre Carter: Yes sir, I appreciate that, but basically I don’t have the time anymore. I’m losing too much in damages. I can’t afford to keep paying for all this stuff that I’m losing in damages to whatever kind of assessment if needed. Something needs to be done.

Councilman Green: Of course Mr. Carter, the police are here today and also Sgt. Shaw is here, and he is a person with a library of information. You could talk to him afterwards and I will get with him and get with you.

Andre Carter: And Mr. Lester, I forgot that you were an attorney, I guess I could have talked to you, because everybody I called in town about a legal situations, you know they wanted to charge me an arm and a leg, just for answer a few of my questions.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, since I spend 75% of my disposal income on disposal diapers, my rates have gone up.

Councilman Green: Sgt. Shaw will be back to take the information.

Andre Carter: Okay, I appreciate that. Is - - - I see the City Attorney is not here, but is anyone available on a legal aspect, because what I’m trying to do is- - - it’s not only me, my neighbors have suffered violence, vandalism, and theft. It’s not only me, it’s the whole block basically. And these, this one group of people that we are trying to see, by all means necessary, trying to get removed, because like I say, they are leasing this property and we are homeowners, and I would think that we would have a stake in the well being of our neighborhood, but unfortunately, so far, it seems like we’re on the losing end to people that are leasing, which I don’t understand how that could be so, and they only been there two months. And this is the damage they have caused. Now, as far as the police department, I know they ought to be aware of this situation, because they done been out to this residence 30+ times in this time frame, due to domestic violence amongst themselves, and litter and vandalism toward other neighbors.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Carter, what you got to do is get Councilman Green to put that camera over there. That camera has never gotten out of District F, but we can get signs that say camera, but he’s got the camera, so maybe you can get him to - - -

Andre Carter: I don’t think they even care, because I have surveillance around my residence and apparently, they don’t care about that. But I mean, the fact remains they are knowledgeable of what the Police can and cannot do and I’m figuring that’s why they keep doing this. Because they know according to the Police there is nothing is going to be done to them. But my thing is if the Police or anybody would go by there and make a statement to these people, maybe they can understand what the neighborhood is trying to say to them. Or maybe understand what the City is trying to do to help us (unclear) from having this kind of negative publicity or a negative presence in the neighborhood such as mine.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Carter, let me say, I’m not sure which Police Officers have allegedly made those particular statements, but age doesn’t exempt you from the law. And there is nobody outside the boundaries of the law, that a Police Officer or the law cannot do anything with. That’s - - - everybody is circumscribed to obey the law. And there is no age exemption or otherwise. So, to the degree that someone has communicated that, that’s not correct. And that wouldn’t be the case.

Andre Carter: Well, that’s what I’ve been hearing. I heard this one particular child below the age of 10, the officer blatantly told me that he could not be prosecuted for any crime, because he’s under the age of 10.

Councilman Jackson: Well, let me just tell you- - -

Andre Carter: What he did not specify is whether or not parent accountability was involved in this.

Councilman Jackson: Notwithstanding. Let me just suggest to you, I’ve eaten lunch at the Juvenile Detention Center, and that’s not true.

Councilman Lester: I’ve represented defendants 8 and 9 years old at the Juvenile Detention Center. And Councilman Jackson is right.

Andre Carter: Okay, well with this knowledge, I mean, from what I’m hearing today and from what I’ve heard since we’ve talked to the Police on several occasions, and they are giving me the run around about what they cannot do. But that’s basically all I’m hearing is what we cannot do in situations like this. So, I mean, something needs to be done on those factors.

Councilman Jackson: I will ask this, Councilman Green and I saw a Police Officer just step out right here. We’re going to ask that I don’t think the Chief is here right now, but Sgt Shaw, if you - - - and I’d ask if you all could have a side bar right over where they are? And have some discussion about that, they can perhaps shine some more light on that.

Andre Carter: Okay, well I appreciate your time and patience.

June Phillips: (3761 Bobbitt) Thank you so very, very much. Thank you Mayor, and honorable members of the Council. I come today, because I have a particular problem that I was not aware of. I have a bill here from Code Enforcement that says that they removed a vehicle from my property and sent me a bill for $220, because of that removal from one of my vacant lots. And when I called Code Enforcement, they said that they did not run the VIN number to find out whose vehicle it was, so my response to them was that I believe that it would probably be appropriate for you to bill the person who owns the vehicle not the property owner. But what they have informed me is that they do not run the VIN numbers to find out who the owner of the vehicle is they bill the property owners. So, what I would like to ask is that if you can review that policy and decide that if you do discover an abandon vehicle that the VIN number can be identified that owner can be identified and that person will be billed and not the person that they put the vehicle on or near their property, and as a result the owner is the one who will pay the cost for it, but at this particular time I have the bill and I feel that it is unfair for me to have to pay for a vehicle that somebody else abandon. Will you review that policy please? Thank you.

Councilman Jackson: Ms. Phillips, just a second. Mr. Carmody.

Councilman Carmody: I believe that Mr. Bowie has moved up to the front row, but if I could ask him to please come forward. Mr. Bowie, welcome sir, in conjunction with her request Code Enforcement, does not run the vehicle identification number for abandon vehicles, is that correct?

Mr. Bowie: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: So, the concern that Code Enforcement has is particularly with an abandon or inoperable vehicle on private property?

Mr. Bowie: That’s right.

Councilman Carmody: And your department contacts the property owner of record and notifies them that they are responsible to remove that abandon vehicle regardless of the ownership, correct?

Mr. Bowie: Correct, by certified mail.

Councilman Carmody: And then they are given ample time to remove the car before the City contracts to have the car towed?

Mr. Bowie: Correct.

Councilman Carmody: So, is the owners responsibility then on the property owner to find out who the owner of the vehicle is and get them to take the car off before they get charged with that penalty?

Mr. Bowie: That’s the way the ordinance reads, yes.

Councilman Carmody: And then how would someone like this young lady, excuse me ma’am, who had placed their property on hers?

Mr. Bowie: Well I guess she could contact the Shreveport Police, they might help her identify the vehicle by the VIN number.

Councilman Carmody: And then I guess the last question that I have, if she reported that someone was trespassing on her property by having place and inoperable vehicle that did not belong to her would that have taken the responsibility off of her to have to pay that or move it?

Mr. Bowie: That’s a good question for Ms. Glass, that’s a legal question.

Councilman Carmody: Ms. Glass, any help on that?

Ms. Glass: I don’t know the answer to that either.

Councilman Carmody: Well the reason that I make that observation, because it would appear to me that the responsible property owner would take into account the condition of their own property, and that there must be some way in which a property owner, and in this case a vacant property owner that’s not your residence, I assume, yeah would go by and see something that was not there’s and then what I am trying to find out is there a process in by which the City would assist them to determine the ownership so that they could facilitate get the trespassing property off of their real estate.

Ms. Glass: You would just have to (inaudible)

Councilman Carmody: My suggestion though might be t to contact the police department ma’am, to find out if there’s a way ask for their assistance in that matter. They might tell you no, there’s not, but we have some officers here today that might be able to answer that question.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Lester.

Councilman Lester: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Phillips, that’s a very interesting concern that you have and I think it’s a legitimate one and what I would do, I would ask because we have members of our property standards task force that we place that on our next task force agenda to deal with that issue. Quite obviously, you know, if you own a piece of property that you have being paying taxes on and maybe have be maintaining, you may or may not know what is going on, quite obviously from where we sit we are in a double airs position. Our charge and responsibility is to make sure that people are not putting inoperable vehicle on that are sitting on the lots and making the neighborhoods look bad and so to a certain existent there is some ownership in the property owner and if I say this I remember us having this discussion in one of our property standards meeting, and I think Councilman Carmody asked the question. Does the property owner bare the responsibility or can we assist them or especially if this piece of property, you know, a car or something is not theirs, where do we go? I mean do we advise them to push it in the middle of the street?

Councilman Carmody: And correct that please, because remember if at that point the property owner then is charged for the cost.

Councilman Lester: Right, but if it is pushed in the street and its not on their property line then it’s not Code Enforcement issue, it’s a police issue. So, are we then to ask everyone to push the cars in the middle of the street, and I don’t think that’s the answer so we are not going to solve it now, but I’ll give you my card Ms. Phillips and we will just certainly see what the legal ramification are from the Code Enforcement and the Property Standards committee.

Ms. Phillips: Thank you.

Councilman Lester: But I just want you to understand that from where their position, Code Enforcement is if that’s what the ordinance is the responsibility is not on them because they did what we asked them to do as per the ordinance. The bigger question is from a policy standpoint how do we deal with it, the problem is not with Code Enforcement it’s with the policy and we’ll discuss it.

Ms. Phillips: All right.

Councilman Lester: Yes ma’am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, Mr. Bowie.

Councilman Jackson: So, that’s all the question I assumed then gentlemen?

Property Standards Report: None.

Public Hearing: None.

Confirmation and/or Appointments, Adding Legislation to the Agenda and Public Comments.

Confirmations and/or Appointments.

BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS

Architect Gregory G. Smotherman, Morgan, Hill, Sutton, & Mitchell

Sanitary Engineer K. Randal Smoak, Cothren, Graff, Smoak Eng. Inc.

Home Builder Michael J. Penn, M. J. Penn Companies, Inc.

Electrical Engineer Alvin J. Walker, Walker & Walker Associates

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Gibson to confirm the appointment of Gregory G. Smotherman, K. Randal Smoak, Michael J. Penn, Alvin J. Walker to the Building Board of Appeals.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Carmody.

Councilman Carmody: Quick question, these names were submitted and then laid over for the mandatory two weeks? Mr. Dark, you giving me a nod yes, or are you giving me a shrug, you don’t really know?

Mr. Dark: That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, thank you, that’s all I want to make sure, very good.

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

ELECTRICAL BOARD

Master Electrician Kirk Davis, Bob Davis Electric Co., Inc.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody, to approve Kirk Davis to the electrical board. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda

1. Resolution No. 217 of 2004. A resolution declaring a moratorium on the issuance of building permits for construction of new residential developments within a specified area of North Shreveport and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody to add Resolution No. 217 to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Public Comments: None.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION

TO INTRODUCE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

RESOLUTIONS: None

ORDINANCES: None

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

RESOLUTIONS:

Mr. Thompson: We have one resolution declaring the moratorium on the issuance on the building permits for construction.

RESOLUTION NO. 208 of 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JAMES WILLIAM HOLDEN & WANDA LEE MEELER HOLDEN, LOCATED AT 4020 PARKWOOD DR., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that James William Holden & Wanda Lee Meeler Holden, be authorized to connect the building located at 4020 Parkwood Dr., to the water 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.

RESOLUTION NO. 209 of 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOHN CRAIG BAILES & THERESA JOHNSON BAILES, LOCATED AT 4022 PARKWOOD DR., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that John Craig Bailes & Theresa Johnson Bailes, be authorized to connect the building located at 4022 Parkwood Dr., to the water 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.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Gibson to adopt Resolution No(s) 208 and 209. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and , Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 210 of 2004

A RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH THE REPAIRS OF AN EXISTING MANHOLE THAT HAS SUNKEN AND POSSIBLY CAUSED A 24" SEWER MAIN TO COLLAPSE ON FLOURNOY LUCAS RD AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the Department of Operational Services has learned of a sunken manhole on Flournoy Lucas Rd. near Twelve Oaks Subdivision which may result in interrupted sewer services if immediate corrective action is not implemented, and

WHEREAS, the manhole and sewer main failure may result in a potential health hazard to the residents of Flournoy Lucas Rd., creating an emergency situation, and

WHEREAS, existing City forces and equipment are not adequate and available to repair this problem, and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due legal, and regular session convened, that it declares a public emergency in connection with a manhole repair on Flournoy Lucas Rd., and notice of such public emergency shall within ten days thereof, be published in the official journal of the City of Shreveport proposing or declaring such public emergency in accordance with Section 38:2212(D) of the Louisiana Revised Statutes.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council, that it authorizes the Department of Operational Services to expend approximately $135,000 to repair and stabilize the manhole and sewer main at the earliest date.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the money for this emergency repair shall come from the 2000 Series A Water & Sewer Funds.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and , Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

ORDINANCES: None

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION:

RESOLUTIONS ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE OR WHICH REQUIRE ONLY ONE READING:

Mr. Thompson: I believe that 199 is to be postponed.

1. Resolution No. 199 of 2004: Authorizing the renewal of an agreement between the City of Shreveport and KPMG, LLP for an external audit of the City of Shreveport for fiscal year January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, authorizing the mayor to execute an engagement letter evidencing said renewal, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Hogan to postpone. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and , Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 200 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE GRANT DOCUMENTS WITH THE LOUISIANA COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement has awarded the City of Shreveport Police Department $200,645 in grant funds under the 2004 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and

WHEREAS, the program is a part of the Louisiana Homeland Security Strategy and has two purpose areas: Information Sharing to Preempt Terrorist Attacks and Interoperable Communications; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened, that it does hereby authorize the execution by Keith P. Hightower, Mayor, those grant documents necessary to accept this award and receive funding established within the program administered by the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement.

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 affect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are hereby declared severable.

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and , Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 201 OF 2004

(A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WITH THE CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD RELATIVE TO THE MUTUAL USE OF FACILITIES, BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO)

Amend the Resolution as follows:

Delete the original AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT

and substitute with the attached AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt the amendment. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and , Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 201 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WITH THE CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD RELATIVE TO THE MUTUAL USE OF FACILITIES, BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport ("City") and the Caddo Parish School Board ("CPSB") entered into a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement (the "Agreement") in August, 2004 relative to the mutual use of facilities by each party; and

WHEREAS, City and CPSB desire to amend the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Mayor is authorized to execute an amendment to the Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the Caddo Parish School Board substantially in accordance with the draft thereof which was filed with the original copy of this resolution for public inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Council on September 14, 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 application, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Gibson to adopt the resolution as amended. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and , Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 200 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE GRANT DOCUMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the United States Bureau of Justice Assistance has authorized the City of Shreveport Police Department to apply for grant funds and accept under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program; and

WHEREAS, the award, if approved will be for a total of $84,107, and will require a cash match by the City of Shreveport in the amount of $9,345; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport shall make application to receive an award as part of a national program to combat violent crime and to expand community policing. The funds received by the Shreveport Police Department will be used for law enforcement equipment such as tasers and/or Police radios.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened, that it does hereby authorize the execution by Keith P. Hightower, Mayor, those grant documents necessary to apply and receive funding established within the program administered by the United States Department of Justice.

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 affect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are hereby declared severable.

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and , Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 207 OF 2004

(A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND THE STATE FAIR OF LOUISIANA, INC., AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO)

Amend the AMENDED AGREEMENT as follows:

Substitute the original AMENDED AGREEMENT with the attached AMENDED AGREEMENT.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt the amendment. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and , Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 207 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND THE STATE FAIR OF LOUISIANA, INC., AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport ("City") entered into an Agreement with the State Fair of Louisiana, Inc. ("State Fair") on July 12, 1910, relative to State Fair’s use, management and control of City-owned property commonly referred to as the "Fairgrounds property"; and

WHEREAS, the 1910 Agreement was amended by authority of Resolution 63 of 1986;

WHEREAS, the parties now desire to further amend the 1910 Agreement to provide for additional matter related to State Fair’s use, management and control of the Fairgrounds property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to the Agreement with the State Fair of Louisiana, Inc., substantially in accordance with the draft thereof which was filed with the original copy of this resolution for public inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Council on September 14, 2004.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green , seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt the resolution as amended. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and, Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 211 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE EFFECTS OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO THE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON OCTOBER 8, 2004 FOR THE TONY ROMA RESTAURANT SPONSORED "KICK OFF PARTY (SPECIAL EVENT)" IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SHREVEPORT/BOSSIER MUDBUGS ORGANIZATION AND TO OTHERWISE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Tony Roma Restaurant in Shreveport, Louisiana will sponsor a "Kick Off Party" on October 8, 2004, in conjunction with the Shreveport/Bossier Mudbugs Organization’s first home game; and

WHEREAS, Tony Roma maintains a permit for the sale of beverages of alcoholic content; and

WHEREAS, the permit does not authorize alcoholic beverages to be sold, dispensed, or consumed outside of the licensed premises; and

WHEREAS, Section 106-130 (6) of the Code of Ordinance of the City of Shreveport (Code) provides that unless otherwise excepted all uses shall be operated entirely within a completely enclosed structure; and

WHEREAS, Section 10-80 (a) of the Code provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange or otherwise dispense alcoholic beverages, except within those sections of the city wherein such sale is permitted by the applicable zoning ordinance; and

WHEREAS, Tony Roma desires to dispense, sell and allow the serving and consumption of beverages of alcoholic content in their parking lot under a 30ft' X 50ft tent outside of the licensed premises between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on October 8, 2004, in conjunction with the "Kick Off Party."

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, Section 106-130 (6) and 10-80(a) of the Code are hereby suspended on October 8, 2004 from 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. to allow the dispensing, selling, serving and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the parking lot of the Tony Roma Restaurant outside of the licensed premises during the "Kick Off Party."

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 provisions or item or this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other 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 Gibson, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Walford.

Councilman Walford: There’ll be children present at this function?

Councilman Gibson: Don’t know.

Councilman Walford: That seems to have been a big concern on those in my district.

Councilman Gibson: Sounds like a political question, I don’t know.

Councilman Jackson: Are there children involved in the kick off party, or the Shreveport Mudbugs Organization at Tony Roma’s restaurant? I have a substitute motion to postpone until we find out.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, if you note it’s October 8^th, if we don’t deal with this today then it want happen.

Councilman Gibson: It’s a private entity.

Councilman Jackson: It’s not happening in the park or anything?

Councilman Gibson: It’s a private – it’s on a –

Councilman Jackson: I don’t know the answer to your question. Mr. Walford, if it was a vacuous question, that needed answering. But, if it was a real question, I still don’t know the answer.

Councilman Walford: I have the same question about outdoor music, it’s adjacent to our apartment area.

Councilman Gibson: Private entity.

Councilman Jackson: Assuming, yeah. I don’t have the answer, Mr. Walford. I hope that doesn’t stop you from voting.

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

RESOLUTION NUMBER 212 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY’S INTEREST IN CERTAIN ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES AS SURPLUS AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, there are numerous parcels of property which have been adjudicated to the City of Shreveport and Caddo Parish for non-payment of ad valorem taxes; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Caddo Parish under which Caddo Parish will undertake to sell or donate said properties as authorized in R.S. 33:4720.11 or R.S. 33:4720.25; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26-294 of the Code of Ordinances, the city’s interests in said properties can be sold after the City Council declares them to be surplus; and

WHEREAS, the purchasing agent has inquired of all city departments regarding the property described herein and has not received any indication that it is needed for city purposes.

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

Lot 35, Holland Subdivision, Unit No. 2 Geographic Number 171425-100-003500

Municipal Address: 453 East 73^rd Street

Council District "D"

Lot 35, West half of Lot 34 and East Half Geographic Number 171306-018-012500

of Lot 36, Block One (1) OPO Subdivision

Municipal Address: 217 Egan Street

Council District "B"

Lot 57, Edgehill Annex, Unit No. 2 Geographic Number 171403-098-005700

Municipal Address: 3521 Frederick Street

Council District "G"

Lots 7 and 8, Block 3, Geographic Number 171414-073-003200

Lincoln Park Subdivision

Municipal Address: 1735 Oakdale Street

Council District "B"

Lot 29 and the South Thirty Feet (S 30') Geographic Number 171423-024-004200

of Lot 30, Block 1, Fairfield Place

Municipal Address: 1831 Hollywood Avenue

Council District "F"

Lot 9, Block "K", Southside Park Subdivision Geographic Number 171424-093-000900

Municipal Address: 6116 Tulsa Avenue

Council District "C"

West Half of Lot 87, Shady Grove Subdivision Geographic Number 171436-016-009400

Municipal Address: 14984 None

Council District "D"

Lot 99 & East Half of Lot 98 Geographic Number 171421-010-014200

G. I. Subdivision

Municipal Address: 4127 Miles Street

Council District "F"

Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Geographic Number 171513-035-000100

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, through 171513-035-000300 and

27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 171513-035-000500 through

39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 171513-035-008200

51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,

75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82 Oaklawn

Village Townhomes

Municipal Address: 72087 None

Council District "G"

Begin at the Southwest corner of Lot 26, Geographic Number 171513-026-007900

Rosewood Estates Subdivision, and run North

0 degrees 8 minutes 34 seconds East 20 feet,

thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 24 seconds

West 509.99 feet to the right of way line of Pines

Road, thence North along same 90 feet, thence

South 89 degrees 57 minutes 44 seconds East 150

feet, thence South 45 degrees East 63.63 feet, thence

easterly parallel to and 45 feet North of the South line

of Lots 67 and 25, and 65 feet North of the South line

of Lot 26, 466.1 feet to the center line of Teakwood

Lane, thence South along same 65 feet, thence South

89 degrees 36 minutes 12 seconds West 151.1 feet to

the point of beginning, less that part of tract described

in Conveyance Book 2206 page 520 of the Records of

Caddo Parish, Louisiana

Municipal Address: 72087 None

Council District "G"

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and , Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Jackson: Question, Mr. then Mr. I’m sorry –

Councilman Walford: We’re on added one?

Councilman Jackson: The only one that was just added.

Councilman Walford: Do we have a hard copy or anything to read on that one?

Mr. Thompson: It’s not – it shows up under added.

Councilman Green: Yeah.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Gibson: On the computer.

Councilman Walford: It is on the computer?

Mr. Thompson: On the moratorium, added section B.

Councilman Lester: If you have a question –

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Walford, do you have a question?

Councilman Walford: Can I have 30 seconds?

Councilman Jackson: Sure, maybe Mr. Lester will address – I think he addressed some of my concerns that it does have a time frame?

Councilman Lester: Yes.

Councilman Walford: It is in conjunction with the master plan that we are waiting on for that area?

Councilman Lester: That’s correct. And it has a sunset at the end of this year, but our attempt is to get that master plan done and completed before that time frame, in fact a preliminary report has already been submitted to MPC, and they’re working on their part to bring some legislation forward from the MPC to the Council, that’s going to deal with that issue.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Lester, seems as if the sunset is next year.

Councilman Lester: Yeah, and I think it’s this year.

Councilman Jackson: It says 2005.

Councilman Lester: And I don’t know why that says 2005, it should say 2004.

Councilman Walford: Would you like to propose an amendment, or for me to propose an amendment, for 2004?

Councilman Lester: Can I strike out on it on a piece of paper? Strike it out on the hard copy.

Mr. Glass: Actually, that correct because it’s a one reader. So, it can be a substitute resolution with the correction made.

Councilman Lester: I make a substitute motion with that correction.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt.

RESOLUTION NO. 217 OF 2004

A RESOLUTION DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN A SPECIFIED AREA OF NORTH SHREVEPORT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the area of North Shreveport described in Attachment A, is characterized by an aging housing inventory, undeveloped property and limited commercial uses. The orderly development of this area is of paramount concern to City official; and

WHEREAS, in recent months, this area has seen a dramatic increase in the number of building permit applications and building permits issued for construction of new residential developments; and

WHEREAS, as articulated in the North Shreveport Development Plan, the concentration of these developments within the area is incompatible with the City’s overall development plan for the area as a mixed used neighborhood capable of supporting necessary or desirable services and retail uses; and

WHEREAS, the continuation of these development without proper planning may serve to adversely impact the City’s goal of promoting diversity in commercial and residential investments and developments within the area; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, through the Metropolitan Planning Commission, has recently undertaken a study of the entire Martin Luther King area in order to evaluate whether the goals of the North Shreveport Plan have been met and to formulate regulations and recommendations for the future orderly development of the area consistent with the Plan and the issues and concerns identified herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, hereby finds it in the public interest to declare a moratorium on the issuance of building permits for construction of new residential developments within the area specified in Attachment A until adoption of ordinances addressing these issues or December 31, 2005 2004, whichever occurs first.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this moratorium shall not apply to the issuance of a building permit for construction a single residential unit by a individual homeowner for non-commercial purposes.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision of this resolution of 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.

Substitute motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody, to adopt substitute Resolution.

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

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS:

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to introduce Resolution No(s). 213, 214, 215, and 216 of 2004 to lay over until the October 12, 2004 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson: 7. Nays: None.

1. Resolution No. 213 of 2004. Authorizing the Mayor to make application with the United States Department of Justice Office of Justice Program and otherwise providing with respect thereto

2. Resolution No. 214 of 2004. A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute grant documents with the U. S. Dept of Justice.

3. Resolution No. 215 of 2004. A resolution authorizing amendments to the agreement with the Krewe of Centaur, Inc., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

4. Resolution No. 216 of 2004. A resolution authorizing an amendment to the agreement with the Krewe of Gemini, Inc., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES

Read by title and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford to introduce Ordinance No(s). 149, 150, 151, and 152 of 2004 to lay over until the October 12, 2004 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays

1. Ordinance No. 149 of 2004. An ordinance enacting section 62-85 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to Department of Public Assembly and Recreation and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 150 of 2004. An ordinance amending certain provisions of Section 10-82(a) of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to alcoholic beverages businesses and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 151 of 2004. An ordinance amending the 2004 Capital Improvements Budget.

4. Ordinance No. 152 of 2004. An ordinance authorizing the Mayor of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana to enter into a cooperative endeavor agreement with the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel Authority; pledging certain sales tax revenues and hotel/motel tax revenues to secure bonds issued by said Authority; and providing for other matters in connection therewith.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE

Mr. Thompson: I believe number 98 is to be postponed.

1. Ordinance No. 98 of 2004. An ordinance authorizing the Lease of City-Owned property to North Shreveport Development Corporation, Inc.

Having passed first reading on June 22, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Lester to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

2. Ordinance No. 124 of 2004. An ordinance levying a tax of twenty-seven and eighty-two one hundredths (27 and 82/100ths) mills per dollar on all property subject to Ad Valorem Taxation within the City of Shreveport for the year 2004 for the purpose of paying principal and interest on the outstanding General Obligation Bonds of the City of Shreveport, and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Postponed September 14, 2004)

Having passed first reading on August 10, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

3. Ordinance No. 128A of 2004. An ordinance amending Section 62-34 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

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

Having passed first reading on August 24, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt the ordinance as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

4. Ordinance No. 140 of 2004. An ordinance authorizing the execution of an agreement to lease City-Owned property at 401 Texas Street to Shreveport Multicultural Center, Inc., relative to the Multicultural Center of the South; to provide for the Management and Operation of same; and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt the amendment.

Councilman Jackson: Question. Mr. Thompson, does this is some how another without this amendment this particular ordinance out of line with other ordinances, that govern the same scenarios?

Mr. Thompson: I can’t answer that I don’t know the answer to that question.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Lafitte.

Mr. Lafitte: Good Evening.

Councilman Jackson: Good Evening, on this amendment on item number 140, there’s a amendment, I don’t know if you’ve seen the amendment, are you familiar with the amendment?

Mr. Lafitte: I’ve seen the amendment.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Carmody, maybe you can bring him up to spend on what the amendment was and perhaps what you thought the need was for the amendment.

Councilman Carmody: Basically, what the clarification is, is a resolution to the council is added three times regarding signs that could be placed upon the building, which familiar was known as the Pioneer Bank building, in downtown that the council by it’s authority would grant approval for the signs to be placed on that building. Secondly, that regarding a sublease or assignment again would have to be brought back before the council for the passage by resolution. And then third, again, in the assignment or sublease the council would by resolution would have to consider it Multicultural Center would bring it forward to our attention and then we would by resolution vote to grant that authority.

Mr. Lafitte: I understand the amendment.

Councilman Jackson: Now the question is, is that consentient with everything else that we have in the City, or if we were to pass this minus this amendment would that make some how or another out of tune with what would be in the best interest of the City?

Mr. Lafitte: Some of our agreements have some of those amendments in it. It wouldn’t be unusual for you to pass those, you know, if that would be the pleasure of the council so its pretty much up to the Council how they want these agreements to be, I guess outlined.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Carmody.

Councilman Carmody: And again, Mr. Lafitte, just to duck tail on to what your comments are again the Multicultural Center the south is building a function of that organization under the auspice of a public necessity, and therefore the lease is within that building should also fall within those parameters which is again, what I had conveyed to Mr. Williams. I think that we need to make sure there’s been some concern about on other building owners and interest of the competitive rate that would be offered within that building to person outside of the scope of a public service, or a public entity. And so, this is just a protection again for the Multicultural Center as well as the Council to make sure that we’re reviewing and granting by resolution the authority for them to enter into those leases. Not to prohibit them, but to make sure that we are not putting in jeopardy public trust that we have and that their organization is charged with keeping.

Councilman Jackson: I guess my concern was, it seems as if what we’ve done is we’ve given the building – leased the building and then we got super ropes around the building, you know we leased the building to you, but you know, you need to march to the beat of our drum with regards to certain things, because as a requirement of (inaudible) this amendment will make it an requirement of deletes. So, I guess my concern was whether or not it was about market rates and competition, is that consistent with what we’ve always done, or we looking out for building owners in Downtown in certain perimeter is it something that’s consent to what we do in all parts of the town, is it a before issue what is – that was my concern and I could not interpret from reading the black and white of what’s there, what was the intent of these amendments.

Mr. Lafitte: I guess an overall scheme of things the Council does have a right to review different leases that the City’s makes, and that’s not something that unusual.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Walford.

Councilman Walford: If I may, I see Mr. Cooksey back there, and my experience is that in all the City owned property of the Airport, the Airport Authority has to approve subleases. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. Lafitte: That is correct I do know.

Councilman Walford: Okay, well you can answer that, he’s nodding his head. I have had experience with that, and so it’s not inconsistent with what we do with public buildings, is that –

Mr. Cooksey: Most of our properties we’re getting appraisal process, determine fair market value on a lease, in which the Airport Authority then approves.

Councilman Jackson: But if someone leases and then wants to sublease?

Mr. Cooksey: The Airport Authority then approve the sublease, yes sir.

Councilman Walford: That’s where I was going, thank you, very much. So, it’s not inconsistent?

Councilman Jackson: And I hope nobody was trying to read my motive, I was just asking the question because it didn’t seem plain to me while we would do it, because, you know, I just haven’t seen that particular amendment, but I know perhaps it is (unclear) in other contracts before it gets to this level perhaps. That was my question, thank you. Mr. Green.

Councilman Green: What contracts do we review as a council before –

Councilman Jackson: All of them.

Mr. Dark: You review almost everything that doesn’t involve spending budgeted money, you give most of that power to the Administration. There’s a practical matter the only differences between this and the way the agreement was originally written is instead of the Mayor having to already do these things, y’all will do it by resolution, cause it already says Shreveport shall have such authority, just Mr. Carmody’s makes it specific as to which part of Shreveport has the authority.

Councilman Green: Do I still have the floor?

Councilman Jackson: Councilman Green.

Councilman Green: I guess my basic concern about this amendment is that basically it may get to political and if we don’t like whose going in then we don’t give them that opportunity. I just think some stuff we just need to just kind of let them operate.

Councilman Jackson: With all due respect I guess we will cross that bridge when we get there. Mr. Gibson.

Councilman Gibson: Call for question.

Councilman Jackson: Die for a lack of second.

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

Having passed first reading on September 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt the ordinance as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

5. Ordinance No. 141 of 2004. An ordinance authorizing the donation of City-owned property at 2800 Darien Street to Shreveport/Bossier Community Renewal and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

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

6. Ordinance No. 143 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 September 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

7. Ordinance No. 144 of 2004. An ordinance amending the 2004 General Fund Budget.

Having passed first reading on September 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

8. Ordinance No. 145 of 2004. An ordinance amending the 2004 Budget for the Fleet Services Internal Service Fund.

Having passed first reading on September 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

9. Ordinance No. 146 of 2004. An ordinance amending the 2004 Golf Enterprise Fund Budget.

Having passed first reading on September 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

10. Ordinance No. 147 of 2004. An ordinance amending Section 10-226 (a-c) of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to alcoholic beverages and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on September 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt.

Councilman Jackson: Question, I didn’t specifically, I didn’t look at it and I don’t want to waste time, but what specifically are we looking for section –

Councilman Lester: Basically, the open container, there were some changes in the legislation as it relates to open containers, which (inaudible) in the City with what the States statue.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Lester.

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

11. Ordinance No. 133 of 2004. An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Code zoning ordinance by rezoning property located on Northwest corner of Martin Luther King & Willie Mays, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-2, neighborhood business district, to R-1C, Suburban, One-family Residence District and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

Having passed first reading on September 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

12. Ordinance No. 148 of 2004. An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport zoning ordinance, by rezoning property located on the west side of Jewella Avenue, 200 feet south of Cleveland, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1D, Urban-One Family Residence District to B-3, Community Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Councilman Green: Mr. Chair, motion to deny.

Councilman Jackson: I think we are going to have to have a motion for it and then vote against it, would be the appropriate process.

Having passed first reading on September 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion denied by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Ayes: None.

Councilman Jackson: And I believe the Councilman in that district is requesting a Nay vote.

Councilman Walford: You must have done something right, my nay works.

Councilman Green: Mine want register.

Councilman Carmody: It want register a vote ma’am. I’ve got no pushed, mine will only do yes only.

Councilman Lester: We need to hurry then.

Councilman Carmody: I’m sorry, it’s a no vote.

The adopted ordinances follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 124 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A TAX OF TWENTY-SEVEN AND EIGHTY-TWO ONE HUNDREDTHS (27 AND 82/100THS) MILLS PER DOLLAR ON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT FOR THE YEAR 2004 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that:

An ad valorem tax of Twenty-Seven and Eighty-Two One Hundredths (27 and 82/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2004, for the purpose of paying the principal and interest on the outstanding general obligation bonds of the City of Shreveport, and creating a reasonable reserve for the payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due and payable, and this shall be full authority to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish to extend said tax on the assessment rolls of the City of Shreveport for the year .

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance, Ex Officio Tax Collector of the City of Shreveport, be and she is hereby empowered, authorized, and directed to cause said taxes, as herein above set forth, to be spread upon the tax roll of the City of Shreveport for the year 2004, to collect said ad valorem taxes for and on behalf of said City, according to law, and to place the same to the credit of the funds described herein above as authorized by law. The taxes herein levied shall become a permanent lien and privilege on all property subject to taxation as herein set forth, and the collection thereof shall be enforceable in the manner provided by law.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council shall provide a certified copy of this ordinance to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish immediately after its final passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.

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

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

ORDINANCE NUMBER 128A OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 62-34 OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT CODE OF ORDINANCES AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened that Section 62-34 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to add Section 62-34 (k) to read as follows:

Sec. 62-34. General rules of traffic.

***

(k) Charles and Marie Hamel Memorial Park. No person shall operate an off road vehicle in or upon any portion of the Charles and Marie Hamel Memorial Park. The operation of all other vehicles shall be permitted only on the east side of the Charles and Marie Hamel Memorial Park parking lot. The provisions of this section shall not apply to city personnel or other authorized officials in the discharge of their responsibilities.

"Off road vehicle" shall mean any two, three, or four wheeled vehicle powered by a combustible engine not designated or authorized for use on a public street, road or highway.

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 application 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 TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 128A OF 2004

(AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 62-34 OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT CODE OF ORDINANCES AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO)

Amend the definition of "Off road vehicle" to now read as follows:

"Off road vehicle" shall mean any 2 or 3 wheeled vehicle powered by a combustible

engine whether or not designated or authorized for use on a public road, street or highway or any vehicle with 4 or more wheels powered by a combustible engine not designated or authorized for use on a public road, street or highway".

ORDINANCE NO. 140 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO LEASE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 401 TEXAS STREET TO SHREVEPORT MULTICULTURAL CENTER, INC., RELATIVE TO THE MULTICULTURAL CENTER OF THE SOUTH; TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF SAME; AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport owns immovable property located at the southwest corner of Texas and Edwards Streets which has been designated as the location of the Multicultural Center of the South (MCCS); and

WHEREAS, the Shreveport Multicultural Center, Inc. wishes to lease the said property for the management and operation of the MSSC upon terms and conditions agreeable to both parties.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City an Agreement to Lease, Manage and Operate the Multicultural Center of the South with the Shreveport Multicultural Center, Inc, said Agreement to be substantially in accordance with the form of agreement filed in the office of the Clerk of the City Council on August 24, 2004.

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

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

ORDINANCE N0. 143 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 Six (6) of the Cash Partition of Lot (7) of Solo Hood Lands, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 150, Page 140 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171331-004-0006-00) Municipal Address - 8999 Joel Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: $3,500.00 APPRAISED VALUE: $18,000.00 DISTRICT D

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. 144 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 General Fund budget, to adjust estimated revenues and expenditures 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 External Service Charges by $500,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

In Office of the Mayor, decrease Personal Services by $15,000 and increase Improvements and Equipment by $15,000.

In Public Assembly and Recreation, decrease Personal services by $85,000. Increase Materials and Supplies by $45,000 and Contractual Services by $40,000.

In Finance, decrease Personal Services by $50,000 and increase Contractual Services by $50,000.

In General Government, decrease Personal Services by $15,000 and Improvements and Equipment by $500,000. Increase Contractual Services by $15,000 and Transfer to Capital Projects Fund by $500,000.

In Police, decrease Personal Services by $195,000. Increase Materials and Supplies by $155,000, Other Charges by $10,000 and Transfer to Fleet Services Fund by $30,000.

In Fire, increase Materials and Supplies by $90,000 and Contractual Services by $105,000.

In Operational Services, increase Materials and Supplies by $250,000, Contractual Services by $55,000 and Transfer to Fleet Services Fund by $215,000. Decrease Improvements and Equipment by $215,000.

In City Council, decrease Personal Services by $9,000 and increase Improvements and Equipment by $9,000.

Adjust all totals and subtotals 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.

ORDINANCE NO.145 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 BUDGET FOR THE FLEET SERVICES INTERNAL SERVICE 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 Fleet Services Internal Service, to shift funds among expenditure categories 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. 170 of 2003, the 2004 budget for the Fleet Services Internal Service Fund, be amended as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Transfer from General Fund by $245,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Personal Services by $35,000.

Increase Materials and Supplies by $20,000.

Increase Contractual Services by $190,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No. 170 of 2003, as amended, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 146 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 GOLF ENTERPRISE 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 Golf Enterprise Fund budget to reflect current estimates of revenue and expenses 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. 163 of 2003, the 2004 budget for the Golf Enterprise Fund, is hereby amended as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Decrease External Service Charges and Fees by $197,700.

Increase Transfer From General Fund by $174,100.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Decrease Personal Services by $50,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance No.163 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 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. 147 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 10-226 (a-c) OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and

regular session convened that Section 10-226 (a-c) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport is hereby amended and now reads as follows:

Section 10-226: Possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages in open

containers within motor vehicles prohibited

(a) It shall be unlawful for the operator of a motor vehicle, or the passenger in or on a motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is operated on a public highway, right of way, street or park to possess an open alcoholic beverage container, or to consume an alcoholic beverage, in the passenger area of a motor vehicle. Unless the open container is actually in the possession of the passenger, it shall be presumed to be in the possession of the operator.

(b) "Open alcoholic beverage container" means any bottle, can or other receptacle that contains any amount of alcoholic beverage and to which any of the following is applicable:

(1) It is open or has a broken seal.

(2) Its contents have been partially removed.

(c) "Open alcoholic beverage container" shall not mean any bottle, can or other receptacle that contains a frozen alcoholic beverage unless the lid is remove, a straw protrudes there from or the contents of the receptacle have been partially removed.

(d) "Passenger area" means the area designated to seat the driver ad passengers while the motor vehicle is in operation and or any area that is readily accessible to the driver or a passenger while in their seating positions, including the glove compartment. It shall not mean a locked glove compartment or behind the last upright seat, or any area not normally occupied by the driver or a passenger in a motor vehicle that is not equipped with a trunk. (d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following person or in the following areas:

(1) Any person operating or occupying a motor vehicle who, as a condition of his employment and while acting in the course and scope of such employment, is required to carry open alcoholic beverage containers, provided that the operator or passenger does not consume the alcoholic beverages.

(2) Any paid fare passenger on a common or contract carrier vehicle, as defined in La R. S. 45:162.

(3) Any paid fare passenger on a public carrier vehicle as defined in La. R. S. 45:200.2.

(4) Any passenger in a courtesy vehicle which is operated as a courtesy vehicle.

(5) Any passenger of a self-contained motor home which is in excess of twenty-one feet in length.

(6) Possession of an open container of alcoholic beverage in the trunk of a motor vehicle.

(7) If the motor vehicle is not equipped with a trunk, possession of an open container or alcoholic beverages in any of the following areas:

(A) In a locked glove or utility compartment.

(B) In an area of the vehicle not normally occupied by, and not readily accessible, to the driver or passengers.

(8) Passengers or krewe members riding on a parade float.

(9) Any passenger in a privately owned limousine the driver of which possesses a Class D commercial license

(e) For purposes of enforcement, the observance of a glass, cup, or other container that, on its face does not indicate that the container contains an alcoholic beverage, shall not absent other circumstances, constitute probable cause for a law enforcement officer to stop and question a person.

(f) Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall not be taken into custody by the arresting officer, but instead shall be required to sign a written promise to appear. Further, a violation of this provision shall not be included in the records kept by the commissioner as required in Louisiana Revised Statute 32:393.1.

(f) Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be, on first conviction, punished by a fine not to exceed $100.00. Conviction for subsequent violations shall be punished by a fine to exceed $500.00.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 133 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON NORTHWEST CORNER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING & WILLIE MAYS, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM B-2, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO R-1C, SUBURBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: 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 property located on the northwest corner of Martin Luther King and Willie Mays, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from B-2, Neighborhood Business District, to R-1C, Suburban, One-Family Residence District:

From the intersection of the SW’ly R-O-W of Willie Mays Drive with the NW’ly R-O-W of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive; thence run S44E39'41"W along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive a distance of 12.9 feet, to the P-O-B of the tract herein described; continue S44E39'41"W along Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive a distance of 81.1 feet; thence run N44E26'54"W a distance of 120 feet; thence run N44E39'41"E a distance of 94 feet to a point on the SW’ly R-O-W of

Willie Mays Drive; thence run S44E26'54"E along Willie Mays Drive a distance of 107.3 feet; thence run S0E32'46"W a distance of 18.24 feet to the P-O-B. Being a tract of land at the corner of Willie Mays Drive and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive fronting 120 feet on Willie Mays Drive and 94 feet on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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: None

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Hightower: Could we back up at some point, I’d like to make a comment on ordinance number 152.

Councilman Jackson: Item 152, Mr. Mayor, your comments.

Mr. Thompson: (inaudible) number 133

Councilman Jackson: Oh, I forget. Yeah, we were suppose to talk about that, I beg your pardon, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Hightower: Thank you, sir. And I’ll be brief I know the hour is late. Going back to 152, and the cooperative endeavor agreement and going to the Bond Commission on the hotel, I believe that everything that the council has asked for with the exception of what Councilman Lester and Councilman Jackson, asked for today has been provided. And we will be sure that over the next two weeks that we have the answers from both SMG and HRI that you asked question about today. But, over the past serval months we have spent a lot of time a lot of effort not only with council members, and constituents, and hotel owners, and experts, you name it to come up with a plan that’ll work and help make the Convention Center what it ought to be. We jumped through every hoop that we’ve been asked to jump through. We’ve gone to the private sector on two separate occasions to ask them about coming in and developing a hotel for us, the date after two requests; one request even after the council voted for us not to go back to the private sector, we went and still had no luck in finding a private developer to come and develop this hotel. We did the extra study, just like the council asked, that study has also come back saying the hotel is a feasible project and should be built in conjunction with the Convention Center to make it work. Now I think what we’re faced with over the next two weeks, with this amendment in particular, is a question of courage. This Council had the courage to believe the expert to have the faith, backed by the experts, backed by the numbers, saying it’ll work. The question proposed via the amendment is, should we take it to the vote of the people or not? I don’t think that we should have to continue to study the issue to death or we should continue to hide behind some bush or around some corner, everybody on the Council knows everything they need to know, as far as I know at this point. And again, I’ll reemphasize if there is something that any council member doesn’t know, doesn’t feel comfortable with, needs to be educated, or reeducated, or explained to, any portion of what’s going on – and after today’s discussion I think there were some great questions asked by the Council, especially considering that you’ve only had the HVS study for several days. Obviously, some members did their homework to be able asks the questions that were asked today. But the real question here that has to be asked is, are we going to do what necessary to make Shreveport competitive with other market segment City’s our size, or are we going to continue to fall behind further and further behind? Are we going to fall from the third largest City in this state to the fourth largest in this state, because we don’t have the courage to do what we need to do? I don’t think every public facility large, small, I don’t think it matters has to go before the vote of the people, that’s what the people elected myself, and the members of the City Council to do, was to make the tough decisions, study the issues, seek the expert opinions and make a rational decision. Rather you vote up or down, it is certainly and individual decision at this point, by each council member, but I do know that in Bossier City, they didn’t study the arena to death, they built it and they did it without a vote of the people. Also know that they are building a huge parking garage cross the river, without a vote of the people, to facilitate the River Walk, which will be a huge success not only for Bossier City, but for Shreveport and Bossier City and the Ark-La-Tex as well. Our commitment when we went to the voters and went to the drawing board on the Convention Center was to build a facility that was a benefit not only to Shreveporters but to the Ark-La-Tex as well. Bossier’s done their part, I think it’s time for us to step up to the plate and do our part, if we got a project that’s been topped out steel wise, two blocks from here and it awaits a hotel and I don’t believe that there’s a council member, smirking or not smirking, that can say a hotel is not needed to make the Convention Center be all that it should be. Again, what I’m asking today is that over the next two weeks if there are any questions, any concerns, any additional information that any council member needs, we got two weeks to get that information to you, get you to digest it, help you digest it by the experts if that’s what necessary. But again, we’ve jumped through the hopes, we postpone, we postpone, we put off, we put off, we studied, we studied, we studied, now it’s a question of whether we’re going to slip in our City’s ability to compete with other cities our size. So, I hope that this Council will be in a position and ready to vote two weeks from today, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, let me just say I don’t think it’s any question about what position we want to make sure the City’s is in and I certainly, you know, will not equivocate, saying that not only do we have to be competitive but we have to win sometimes.

Mayor Hightower: Exactly.

Councilman Jackson: And if this puts us in this position, I just obviously think we ought to do it right, and I think that’s the central issue making sure we do it right and Mr. Lester.

Councilman Lester: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could be allowed just to ask this one question, and I guess I don’t know if the question will go to the Mayor or to our legal people. What would be the effect – well first of all the saline question is, if for some reason the Council votes to put this issue out for a public referendum, how soon could that be done? I guess that would be my question, are we talking if we vote for public referendum, could we schedule it in November, or would we have to wait for a spring election or would we have to wait for –

Councilman Jackson: Put on the same thing that the budgets on, we have to vote on everything.

Mayor Hightower: I agree, the earliest I think it will be probably April.

Ms. Glass: I’m not sure the exact date but I know that there is at least a forty-five to ninety-day notice period before an election, so talking about at least that amount of time.

Councilman Lester: And we would have to, I guess from a financial standpoint we would also have to look at finding a date where there’s another election, because talking about an election expense, would that be correct? Okay.

Councilman Jackson: If there’s a run off for the presidency, we could do it –

Councilman Lester: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I mean without saying one thing one way or another, I just needed, you know, have that information. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Councilman Gibson.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t think I was elected to show courage, I think I was elected to be judicially responsible as a City Councilman, and whether we’re falling behind other Louisiana City’s I think there are multiple reasons for that, one of them is our matter of taxes that we pay as a City compared to Bossier City, Desoto Parish, and what we’re getting for out taxes. I think that, that’s another debate that is part of this overall gut wrenching decision that this council is going to have to go through. Again, Mike Strong sitting in the back of the room came before this committee or this council four weeks ago, charging us with finding $200,000,000 right here and now, to address infrastructure needs. Where’s the Chief? Chief Campbell’s back there was before us on the same day, expressing concerns about crime, about manpower, about equipment and other things, and this proposal and I appreciate the due diligence, the hard work, the time that’s gone into it, but the issue on the table is it is the responsibility issue, you know, doing the right thing. Somebodies mentioned, why don’t we have the public look at our budgets, hey I think that’s a healthy situation I think that this Council has been as about as open as it can be in the two years that we’ve been here, but that’s a story for another day, but to say courage I have to take a little bit of exception on it, I’m not one to study things to death either I think the HVS study was to look at current date data and I for one will be introducing a similar resolution that I introduced a couple a months ago, because now we have been told it is feasible, and I will be reintroducing on two weeks a move for a directive to the Administration to put out for a formal request for proposal, which gentleman a formal request for a proposal extends an invitation out into the private sector that says, we’re going to negotiate in good faith. We’re not going to make phone calls, we’re not going to send out letters if we’re serious about it, just like in our procurement, Tom Mattox isn’t here but I can assure you when Tom Mattox is authorized by this City Council to extend money on anything that we do, we have to send out formal request for proposal or information for bids. He can’t send out a letter under his signature and say oh by the way X contractor, or Y supplier please submit a number and we’ll get back with you. So, I take a little exception in fact, yes this is a tough decision this is going to be one of the toughest decisions that we’ve had, but I was elected out of district D, to be judicially responsible first and foremost, and I think that, that’s the question at hand right now not about us against Bossier, I can assure you, you can talk to as many Bossier residence right now concerned about spending money for parking garages, and for CenturyTel, they got as many infrastructure problems and other City service problems just like we do. So, it’s not all a bed of roses over in Bossier City right now, in fact I would suggest to you that most of the residents that are locating in Bossier City aren’t in the city limits of Bossier City, they’re in North Bossier Parish. If you don’t believe that look at the statics, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Councilman Green: Mr. Chair.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, we’ll continue this editorial segment of this – okay, Councilman Green.

Councilman Green: Thank you, Mr. Chair I just wanted to just throw this out parentheticality since we went back to 152. If in fact last council meeting we had rolled forward then we would have solved the Chief’s problem. We could have given our employees a raise, and we could have done a lot of more stuff, but we didn’t do it. Next council meeting this will be a very easy decision for me because the people in district F, looked to me for leadership, so therefore I’m going to look at the big picture. One is hope that they are going to land some jobs and make some money so that they can make a contribution to their families and do well, so it’s very easy for me and it ain’t going to be my hardest vote, my vote is going to be "no" on the amendment and "yes" on the ordinance and I’m in hopes that we can get the rest of the votes so that we can do what we need to do and as to what our chairman normally say, we can’t throw the baby out without the bath water, or with the bath water, okay I knew you had it together and I think you put a big word in there, but I forgot what it was. But it’s going to be easy for me to do because I’m here to do a job and I’m not here to be very, very political I’m here to take care of business and that’s what I’ll be doing on next council meeting, and here again and my reason for it is that I’m serving for this season, I’m serving for this four years after I do a great job this four years and if the constituents in my district see fit for me to come back then I will, if not then I’ll be thankful that I had the opportunity, so I’m only making plans for the now, and that’s why my votes that I do is very easy up here, because I’m not looking for something in the future, and I’m not looking at whether I’m going to make this group made or whatever I just think that it’s time for us to move forward and that’s my commentary, thank you, and I approve that message.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you, Councilman Green. Councilman Carmody.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I think it does come down to the issue of looking at the future and realizing that we as the current city fathers have a tremendous responsibility, be good stewards of not only the citizen’s resources, but also future citizens’ resources. Last night, I had an opportunity to attend the Community Foundation Shreveport-Bossier Forum on water, and I thought it was interesting because they started off with the history of water in Shreveport. And almost a hundred years ago, the Mayor and the other city fathers looked at the necessity to secure a reservoir, provide for the City of Shreveport water needs. Now you can say, why don’t these gentlemen have the courage to just go ahead and do it, well because they realize that the public was going to be 100% of the responsible party for the proposed reservoir of Cross Lake? They placed the issue on a referendum before the public no one up here can say that Cross Lake has not inure to the benefit of our community, continues to do so, what a tremendous asset. As it was pointed out repeatedly, we are so blessed to have water, water is power. Well, in the same way, $40 million worth of guarantee is a lot of power, that’s an awful lot of risk in a venture as I pointed out before that I have no expertise in, neither does anyone else at this desk.

Councilman Jackson: Nor the people in this audience.

Councilman Carmody: Or the people in the audience, correct now that our experts have left. But I would feel more comfortable if the Mayor were asking us to build an automobile dealership, if indeed because again he comes from that background, that is his career, he would understand and be able to at least communicate to us this is how this business operates. The public can make money doing this, okay now in hind sight as we went over before any community would be foolish to proceed with building a Convention Center without having a hotel in their back pocket, okay. And again, it’s not to say that we did it all wrong, I’m not saying that because again we all agree that this project needs a hotel in order to maximize its potential for return. But I’m not charged just to serve for what is of significance today, and just in the same way a century ago theses gentlemen looked and said the public has to realize that we are looking at the potential for securing this asset to the municipality, but the municipality understood they would be taking on responsibility of maintenance of that asset, that is what we’re talking about here. All of the projections that we have seen granted they are all arrow point north this is something that’s doable. I only wish that we were talking with a hotelier that said not only is it doable, but I’m doing it, I’m doing it because I want to make the profit and if the City of Shreveport only portion of it is the improvements of the infrastructures underneath the structure as well as, hopefully some beneficial long term lease where the hotelier will build the improvements, granted he will have the benefit, the upside potential as they say of 100% of the profit. He would also have the potential risk of the down side of 100% of the loss. That is why I have asked that this amendment be attached and considered in two weeks, the Mayor has made a good point, he has tried throughout six years to answer every question regarding this particular issue, each time that we have tried to discern another bit of wisdom out of the process by which again, a business that none of us has any experience in operating, other than the fact that when we solicited to those persons that do this everyday as their career say, no thank you not going to make the return on the money that we need to make it happen. That has always been my concern, now what was originally reported as, well it will be a minimal amount of guarantee the City’s and the citizens of this community be required to stand behind this gap has jumped from a figure of $3 million on the low to now what appears to be a maximum of $40 million on the high. That is where I believe that it is prudent, to give the citizens empower them with their ability to say, yes indeed we understand this and we think that the community should move forward, just in the same way they did on Cross Lake. Now granted, it’s nice to say that Cross Lake didn’t come with any associated cost, really, just like we all voted to increase the water and yet last night, Mr. Strong made a very passionate statement about the fact that this community is going to have to figure out how to up what it is paying for the benefit of that asset. It’s every tub on it’s on bottom so to speak, each one of us is going to play a part in this, granted we’ve all heard that we are going to make money, well that’s one side, we could all loss money therefore, that’s why I think it’s a necessity to allow the public to consider the matter, granted we’re talking about maybe delaying this, Ms. Glass is now said 40 to 90 days is probably a realistic window for trying to get it scheduled, y’all if I remember the last report we got, I think that we got 70 potential leads out there, I think there were 18 hot leads that we are sure that we got one convention booked for 2007 – anyway, the reason that I’m saying all that is this if the facility opens without the hotel the down time and the lapse time granted between know and having the public consider the matter, I can’t see in the financial picture where it’s going to change that significantly, SMG might come aboard and say if your not going to build it and now you got a 45 to 90 day delay on what you got, well that put one of our hot leads in potential that we might not be able to facilitate putting their Conventioneers in the hotel. Well, I’m wiling to take that gamble at least from a John Q, citizen standpoint, because $40 million is a lot of money, I was part of the committee for the Convention Center, I was there from the beginning when it was laid out. I was one of the people that supported the concept, I still do, granted I’ve had my disagreements with the Mayor but I understand the reality of this, we build it to become a public asset and amenity that in turns generates revenue to the City, which is what we’re all trying to do, okay. That keeps the tax payers, you me and everybody else from paying more, we let the other people, the visitors of the community pay it, I like that idea. What if, what if, the hotel fails to generate the projected revenue, that was my point in asking Mr. Antee to clarify, he said some future Administration would have to look at the available revenue, probably the General Fund, maybe the Riverfront Development Fund, yeah, that’s what they are going to have to do, if indeed it comes to that and I’m not saying that it is. I like to be optimist I was optimistic about the idea that sending on to the polls and vote it to approve the Convention Center that, that started us on the road to guaranteeing that we were going to have a private hotelier come in here and build what we wanted. Unfortunately, that was not what occurred, now we are in a fall back position and granted these gentlemen are scrambling, because they are trying their hardest to do what they think is in the best interest of the community, I applaud them for that, just like I applaud all the rest of y’all, I might not agree with everything that everyone wants to do on this council, but I sincerely respect the fact that you think that, that’s in the best interest of this community. That is why this amendment appears on this legislation, because I think that it is in the best interest of this community that the public vote, it’s $40 million that we’re talking about guaranteeing, $85 million was what was asked to be supported at the polls to build the Convention Center, approximately half. I would think that its is as half as important to have the public to consider the matter, now granted some people might say, well that’s politically convenient for Mr. Carmody, once he’s got the green light from the public he can stand up and support it, that might be one way to look at it. But I feel much more comfortable about supporting it knowing that the public realizes that they are going to be involved in the risk, if there is a down side to the project. Two weeks from now we get to consider, every one of us gets a chance to vote our conscience, we’ll talk about then, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Councilman Jackson: Any other comments. I’m in hopes that we don’t have to have this same politically, and these same soliloquies in the two weeks, since we’re discussing it now. I think the motives are clear we don’t all agree what representative form of government means we have different opinions on what representative form of government means, I think it means the people have expectations thus creating responsibility for those elected call it courage, call it whatever you want, people elect us to do the due diligence that they would never do as a community because they do not have the time, they’re not volunteering to come down here and listen to all of this stuff for hours and hours and to go through all of this and they relate that they expect their elected representatives to listen to all of this and to make the best decisions given the good information. Now if we think the information is bad, we need to get good information, but if we got good information for all the time, I mean we vote every week or so every two weeks a so at least every month to abate taxes for businesses, we don’t ever ask people how they feel about that we vote to zone things and people’s district and we don’t ever ask people how they feel about it, thou it’s in their backyard. We don’t have a referendum on every decision, and it just seems to me, while I can certainly appreciate it, Councilman Carmody we just don’t agree on that part, it has nothing to do whether or the people have a voice, the people have a voice and in a representative democracy you represent that voice. Now you can have 25 town home meetings and get petition signed, and there in is a particular reason to vote a particular way. There’s a process that’s involved I don’t think this is it they elect us to come here and pontificate week after week on these subjects, we’re suppose to take the information, study the information, give it due diligence and then make decision. Some are easy, some are not so easy, how ever the Mayor characterizes, that’s it’s own way of saying it, I’m suggesting to us as I said to Councilman Gibson, we vote on three-quarters of a billion dollar, every year and very often never even ask the people next door what they think about it, cause we vote on it every year. I think it similarly important every year that we vote on that budget just as I think is what we call a municipal asset, whatever we want to call it, I just would suggest to us that we vote whatever it as Councilman Carmody suggested, our conscience but lets not beat a dead horse, its time for us to fish or cut bait, and I suggest that in two weeks we come prepared to that regardless of what the outcome may be. Councilman Gibson.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is for the Administration, I saw in the information that was sent out regarding A/E professional services, there is a $80 thousand item to hire a design professional to design a parking garage. Can I get an explanation on what that is and where that money’s coming from?

Mayor Hightower: That parking garage will be built, you know where the valet lot is for Hollywood Casino, right behind the MacArthur strip, will be built on that parking lot. Money will come from serval different things, it will come from the DDA’s making a contribution, Parking Fund is making a contribution, and then we have a, I’m trying to remember if it is a (inaudible) grant or it’s a federal grant.

Mr. Antee: It’s a (inaudible)

Mayor Hightower: It’s a (inaudible) grant.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, could I ask that the Council get a copy of the break out of where that money’s coming from?

Mayor Hightower: Yes.

Councilman Gibson: I would appreciate it, thank you, Administration, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

NEW BUSINESS:

ABO Appeal: Mr. Josh Porter

Cpl. Collins: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Cpl. Collins.

Cpl. Collins: I believe the information was given to you yesterday, what I did was to provided you with a packet it’s got the information again, speaking after you read it. Nothing’s changed from yesterday, about the only thing I want to bring up when you talk about risk, that’s what the Police Department looked at when not approving this, because the alcohol record of Mr. Porter, it’s our belief that puts the citizens at risk by giving him a license in an environment of alcohol. With that increase risk it’s just not worth it, not for one person’s job to put everyone in this City at risk, that’s why I ask you to uphold the Police Department, and I just wanted to make that short and sweet, thank you.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Lester.

Councilman Lester: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, two questions, and I apologize I had to leave on yesterday. You got a November 4, 1999, pled guilty to underage DWI.

Mr. Porter: Right.

Councilman Lester: And that was dismissed under 894, and –

Cpl. Collins: The next one will be January 23^rd.

Councilman Lester: Right, okay 2004.

Cpl. Collins: (unclear) that down to careless and reckless.

Councilman Lester: Careless and reckless.

Cpl. Collins: On August 28^th, was a third one. That was basically 17 days after he got off probation and he was arrested again, and he hasn’t gone to court on that one yet.

Councilman Lester: Okay.

Councilman Carmody: Now, that wasn’t a good thing to say. You want to hear it from (unclear).

Councilman Jackson: Is that it?

Councilman Lester: That answers my questions.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, could Cpl. Collins or Mr. Lester tell us what Article 894 is?

Councilman Lester: Article 894 says if you’ve been convicted by (unclear), if you’re sentenced under Article 894, after you’ve paid your fine, probation, court costs and everything like that, you can file a motion with the court and it basically operates to expunge your record. It only operates in misdemeanor instances. He obviously got the benefit of 894 on the earlier situation, because I’m imagining that it was his first DWI. DWI 1^st, DWI 2^nd are both misdemeanor offenses. So, I don’t know who the judge was, but I suspect that’s what happened. In many instances, that’s what happens, of particular when you’re talking about young people and misdemeanor offenders.

Cpl. Collins: One thing if I could add to that. Article 894 only applies to your first DWI or it only applied to DWI if they are ten years apart. If he would have gotten convicted of DWI on the second one, there wouldn’t have been an Article 894. And because it’s careless and reckless, it’s not a DWI. Cause that’s when you get offered another 894. So, if he did (unclear), this next one would not be able to offer an 894 on it because it’s within ten years of the first one.

Councilman Jackson: Okay. Mr. Porter, anything you’d like to say?

Mr. Porter: Yes, I’d like to start off by thanking you Chairman Jackson for allowing me to come back. I really didn’t have much to say yesterday, I was real nervous and embarrassed like I said, to be up here. What I would like to say is that I do understand the law of sales of alcohol. I would never and will never sell alcohol to a minor. I would be the first to prevent someone who had, had too much to drink to stop drinking or to find another ride. All the time and money that all this has cost me, has been a lot. And I’m disgusted with myself that I’m even here having to do this and that I was arrested here last month and even in January and even the first one. I really like my job. I’m going to LSUS right now and really for the hours, for having a part-time job, this is about the most money I can make being a server, but maybe not necessarily working at El Chico’s, but I like working at El Chico’s. I like everybody that I work with. I would never do anything to jeopardize my job. And I brought the letter, I don’t know if y’all still have a copy of the letter, but my employer does understand everything. The General Manager understands the situation and what I’ve been arrested for and he’s still wants me to work there. So, I know I’m at y’all’s mercy, and I won’t let you down if you do grant me this. Thank you.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you. Any questions? Gentlemen, we have this ABO Card Appeal from Mr. Josh Porter.

Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Carmody to uphold the denial by the Police Department.

Councilman Hogan: Question. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Cpl., could you come forward a second please? I know sometimes when we’re faced with zoning issues on this Council, we will issue an approval for a certain time period, usually one year. I mean, I’m just brain storming on this. I’m just trying to find out, I don’t remember us ever having done this. But, could this be approved within a certain time frame, assuming that he would have no other arrest for a period of time, three months, six months, a year. Is that possible?

Cpl. Collins: Well it’s at the discretion of you. You can change anything you want. It’s your prerogative.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, so we could - - - it would be our initiative to word it like that then? Okay, I’d like to make a motion a substitute motion that the council reverse the decision by the Police Department with the stipulations that he had no trouble with the law of any kind. I’m talking about not even a parking ticket. Mr. Porter, I believe you’re sincere. When I first heard you, when I first read the case yesterday, I had a closed mind. And after I read all this, I said I’m not going to vote for it, no way I’m going to vote for it, but I have listened to you and I believe that you’re sincere. And then you mentioned yesterday that you’re on the honor roll or something at college, is that correct?

Mr. Porter: Yes sir, I’m on the Chancellors’ list for making straight As last semester and I’m - - - you know I didn’t really represent myself well yesterday, I was really nervous and really embarrassed, not that I’m not now. But, I’m not trying to make excuses for myself. What I’ve done is wrong. I know I should not drink and drive. I understand that and if anything, I feel that I would be more responsible with the people that I wait on because of that, because of what I have done and what I’ve gone through and I don’t wish it on anybody.

Councilman Hogan: Well, I hope you understand, and I believe that you’re sincere because I don’t know if you ever known anybody or had a family member or anyone that’s been killed by a drunk driver, but I have known somebody. And I know the devastation that it can cause. And I hope you fully understand that. Like I said, I was totally against this yesterday, but I believe you’re sincere, and I’m willing to give you a chance.

Mr. Porter: I really appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, so do I need to clarify that motion Mr. Chairman? Did everybody understand?

Councilman Jackson: You didn’t have a second. You went into discussion before we had a second.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you.

Substitution motion by Councilman Hogan to overturn the decision of the Police Department for six months. After which time, he must reapply, and the application, when he reapplies will be approved only if he has no other arrests.

Councilman Hogan: That’s correct.

Councilman Jackson: So, we’re going to ask him to reapply in six months?

Councilman Hogan: Yes.

Mr. Thompson: I mean I think that’s the only way you do it.

Councilman Jackson: My question was about the enforce ability of the motion. But if we’re going - - -

Mr. Porter: With the whole idea was to continue working for the next six months or not?

Mr. Thompson: To approve for six months.

Mr. Porter: Okay, I would just have to reapply.

Councilman Hogan: If there’s anytime during the next six months, you’re stopped for a traffic violation, or any type of other violation pertaining to any law, then you lose it.

Mr. Porter: I understand.

Councilman Jackson: I have a motion by Councilman Hogan. Councilman Carmody’s machine seems not be working.

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

Motion to uphold the decision of the Police Department approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, and Jackson. 5. Nays: Councilman Hogan. 1. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Green: 1.

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, could I make one point on 12. Though I’m not the Chairman of a Committee. I really want to commend Mr. Lester on Property Standards Meeting, for bringing the Neighborhood Associations in and I think they really got a good feel for how that committee is working and what we’re trying to do on Property Standards. And it was a lot of people. He handled it beautifully and I think people really did become enlightened, if that’s the right word. So, Mr. Lester, I commend you for that.

Councilman Carmody: And I too Mr. Lester. I heard nothing but tremendous response. The only suggestion I might make would be that there were some Neighborhood Representatives that apparently were not contacted. And I know that Mr. Kirkland, excuse me sir, I went blank there for a second. Mr. Kirkland’s list of those Neighborhood Associations and the Persons are actively involved in their neighborhoods, if we could include that list to make sure that we get it, I think it would just be that much more effective.

Councilman Lester: Point taken.

Councilman Walford: We’ll probably have it in here or some larger venue.

CLERK’S REPORT:

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Lester’s called an SRA Meeting immediately after the Council Meeting.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:50 p.m.

//s//Theron Jackson, Councilman Chairman

//s//Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council