CC 3827

01 17 05

Council Proceedings of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana

January 11, 2005

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana was called to order by Chairman Mike Gibson at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2005, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Hogan.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Carmody.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Green, you have a special guest that would like to offer a few words to the Council and also share a few comments to the Council and what’s going on with his church.

Councilman Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman, a friend and a brother Pastor Robert Walton is here, the Pastor of the St. Rest Baptist Church, and my formal principal. I was one of his best students he ever principaled. So, Pastor Walton, would you come?

Pastor Walton: Thank you Rev. Green, and to Mr. Gibson and to the Council. Its an honor to be asked to make the preliminaries. Councilman Green was a good student.

Councilman Green: Speak Rev.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Jackson, did you hear that?

Pastor Walton: He stayed in the office as much as the Secretary. Seriously, we’re just happy to be able to come and to let this Council know how elated we are at the St. Rest Baptist Church, and I know (unclear) the City and the Parish grateful for the job that you are doing and we want to be a part of this process and we are going to put forth some effort at the St. Rest Baptist Church, 1664 Garden Street, to be a part of the ongoing process of what the City and Parish are trying to do. And we just have begun some projects there, with the St. Rest Baptist Church and we are hoping to, in the Allendale revitalization, hope to just again, be a part of the process in helping to make a better community there at our location, extending over this City and Parish. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Pastor. You always bring words of wisdom to us and always pray for us to have patience. You must have had a lot of patience when you were dealing with Councilman Green when he was growing up. But we appreciate the insight. Madame Clerk, can we call the roll please.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester, Walford (arrived at 3:03p.m.), Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7. Absent: None.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Hogan to approve the minutes of the Administrative Conference, Monday December 22, 2004 and Council Meeting, Monday, December 27, 2004. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays. None. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Walford. 1.

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

Councilman Gibson: Any recognitions by Council? Mayor?

Mayor Hightower: Nothing today Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Clerk, this resolutions listed under other resolutions or is it with awards and special recognitions? The resolution that I have.

Mr. Thompson: You have a resolution. It’s to be added to the agenda to recognize the Krewe of Sobek.

Councilman Jackson: So we can just add when we need to add it to the agenda.

Mr. Thompson: It needs to be added to the agenda.

Councilman Jackson: Gotcha. And then we at that time Mr. Chairman, I’ll suspend the rules and ask for the vote on that resolution at that time.

Reports:

Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel

Councilman Gibson: Under reports, we had none yesterday on the Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel. Mayor Hightower, or Mr. Antee, Mr. Dark anything new to add for today on that particular item.

Mr. Dark: You might want to check with the Mayor, I’m not aware of any.

Mayor Hightower: Nothing Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Property Standards Report

Councilman Gibson: Couple of things from Council yesterday for Mr. Bowie and Ms. Moore. Any other comments or questions from Council for Property Standards? Alright Gentlemen.

Public Hearing: Proposed Annexations

1. TAG No. 04-02: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located along the south side of the East Flournoy Lucas Road (LA. Hwy. 523) in portions of Sections 4,5,8, and 9 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

2. TAG No. 04-04: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located south of the Shirley Francis Road in the NE/4 of Section 5 (T16N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (G/Jackson)

3. TAG No. 03-05: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located in the southeasterly intersection of the Flournoy Lucas Road with Pines Road in the N/2 of Section 1 (T16-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Hogan)

4. TAG No. 03-01: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located along the Southern Loop Road in the SE/4 of Section 20 and the NE/4 of Section 29 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

5. TAG No. 03-02: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located along the Ellerbe Road in the SW/4 of Section 5 and in the NW/4 of Section 8 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

6. TAG No. 03-03: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the Cit of Shreveport - a tract of land located along the East Flournoy Lucas Road (LA. Hwy 523) in Sections 3 and 4 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and a portion of LA. 1 (Youree Drive), and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

7. TAG No. 03-04: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - A tract of land located in the SW/4 of Section 29 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, for Southern Trace, Phase IV, Section XVII- A/B, Subdivision, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

Councilman Gibson: We have a public hearing on annexations. I call this public hearing open. Is there a presentation from the Administration?

Mr. Dark: No sir, I’m not aware of one. Would want to point out though that there are approximately building sites being added to the City limits if these annexations are approved.

Councilman Lester: I think Mike Strong was supposed to be here to make a presentation. Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Lester.

Councilman Lester: Thank you. As I appreciate it, Mr. Gib- - -Mr. Gibson (I keep saying that. It’s a Freudian slip), Mr. Strong is supposed to be here. He has some information.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Strong?

Councilman Lester: On the annexations.

Mr. Strong: Freudian Slip?

Councilman Gibson: We have the same beauty marks Mr. Strong. Our heads.

Councilman Lester: Y’all all look alike Mike. I had to say it.

Mr. Strong: Council, we have I mean I can go through these and give you a presentation on each one of ‘em that’s in here. But they’re pretty well standard. These are all areas that were vacant lands, subdivisions as Mr. Dark stated and there are some over 600 building sites that will eventually be built on in these areas, that’s in there. And I believe they are all actually will be in Councilman Gibson’s District, once everything is in. But that’s pretty well it. If there is any specific questions with any of these, I’ll be more than happy to answer anything or we can go through ‘em. I can go through each and everyone of ‘em for you.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I had an opportunity on yesterday to speak with Mr. Strong and he provided me some information as it relates to those properties. As I appreciate it, these are tracts of land. There is no building that is there right now.

Mr. Strong: They’ve started building on some of ‘em that’s in there, and possibly some have even been completed and people have started moving in, but when these were first started through the process, they were just vacant lands.

Councilman Lester: Okay, and we’re talking about a total of how many house, how many homes? Potentially 650?

Mr. Strong: Over 600, yes. I don’t know the exact, but I know it’s like 610 or somewhere in that neighborhood.

Councilman Lester: And as I appreciate it, after - - - if this annexation goes through, then all of this will be submitted to the Justice Department?

Mr. Strong: That is correct. It goes to the City Attorney’s office who then submits all of these to the Department of Justice.

Councilman Lester: And the Justice Department does their magic in terms of pre-clearance and then they give us a report and then we move from there?

Mr. Strong: That is correct.

Councilman Lester: Okay, thank you, that was the question that I had.

Councilman Hogan: Councilman Lester has asked most of the questions that I had in terms of potential revenue for us or even existing revenue that we would benefit from right now. There are no businesses in any of these annexations that would reap any new sales tax revenues or the only thing we’re going to benefit from is property taxes I guess, is that correct?

Mr. Strong: Any building that is going on, once it is annexed, then we would reap the benefit of a sales tax that would be coming through there.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, in terms of currently right now, there is nothing out there?

Mr. Strong: No, currently, there is some building going on, on some of these sites that we’re seeing, and that’s some of ‘em have actually- - - I think had some construction that’s already been completed. And so we’re starting to see that where we’re coming up on, that anything else that happens once it’s annexed in, we would reap some of the tax benefits.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, do you know what we would benefit now in terms of property taxes? Do you have an estimation on that?

Mr. Strong: Not until we know what the values are going to be or what goes in on each one of them. Cause we’re looking at - - - when we looked at this initially, you’re looking at it as vacant land. And of course, everyone of them will be with the water and sewerage, so we’ll have revenues that will be coming in from that.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, one last question about - - - we’re talking about the process of going to the Justice Department for approval. How long generally does that take?

Mr. Strong: I’ll have to ask the City Attorney to speak on that exactly, I’m not sure.

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

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Strong, I’m not sure that you have the benefit of the maps?

Mr. Strong: Yes sir, I have the maps here.

Councilman Carmody: Could you take a look at TAG 03-03? This looks like it’s along that section of Flournoy Lucas Road as well as south Youree Drive, south of Flournoy Lucas.

Mr. Strong: Yes sir.

Councilman Carmody: Could you elaborate on the need to annex what appears the width of the Youree Drive right of way, approximately one block south of it’s intersection of Flournoy Lucas Road?

Mr. Strong: It was, you- - -

Councilman Carmody: See what I’m talking about Mike, it looks like it’s actually the street that we’re annexing.

Mr. Strong: Oh, Flournoy Lucas?

Councilman Carmody: Come over to Youree Drive.

Mr. Strong: Yes sir. I know that we were doing on Flournoy Lucas of what was in of bringing that section in, cause it was in on there. The section on Youree Drive - - -

Councilman Carmody: It’s kinda catty corner and I guess from our Fire Station.

Mr. Strong: I’m not exactly sure of the exact reasoning on that, but there is a reason, but I couldn’t give it to you now. If you wanted to hold up on this one, I don’t mind.

Councilman Carmody: Well no, actually I had a constituent called me to ask you that question, because when he asked me, I told him, I didn’t have an explanation, but I would sure ask Mike.

Mr. Strong: I wish you would have called me and then I would have had you an answer, but I do not have that.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Carmody, I’m going to defer to Tom Dark. Mr. Dark.

Mr. Dark: Mr. Chairman, what I was told was that whenever possible, they try to annex a full intersection. They’re trying to pick up that whole intersection and traffic light that goes with it. It has something to do with having a Fire Station in front of it and they like if the engine leaves the station on city streets if at all possible. That was the explanation his real estate staff told me yesterday, cause I asked the same question.

Councilman Carmody: Oh, very good.

Councilman Gibson: And Councilman, I will also suggest to you, we have made some request because it’s been outside the City, we have a timing problem with the light, and hopefully, Mr. Strong will be able to take care of it because the amount of traffic that in the morning and evenings, trying to get onto Flournoy Lucas and going I guess east bound on Flournoy Lucas turning onto Youree Drive in the morning and then return traffic coming down on Youree Drive, turning onto Flournoy Lucas in the evening, that light needs to be extended. And hopefully as we take this area on, we’ll be able to control that traffic a little bit better.

Councilman Carmody: One last question Mr. Chairman. In looking at this particular map, it appears that our sewerage treatment plant is actually in the Parish? Is that correct?

Mr. Strong: We have the like north regional also.

Councilman Carmody: They’re both out in the Parish?

Mr. Strong: Yes sir.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, I just didn’t know if we wanted to have our municipal assets out in the Parish.

Mr. Strong: The landfill is too.

Councilman Gibson: Speaking of the Parish Commission, I would like to recognize Parish Commissioner Carl Pierson, who has joined us today. Good to see you and Happy New Year! Any other comments from the Administration. Do we have anybody here to speak in favor of the proposed budget appropriation ordinances? I guess that should have been annexations? Anybody to speak against? If not, I will call this Public Hearing closed on those particular annexations.

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

Confirmations and/or Appointments

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, the Mayor submitted a letter dated January 10^th, where he appoints Gary Lee Pittman, Frank Hollingsworth and Leon Wheeler to the Fire and Police Civil Service Board. If the Council wants to take those up, you need a motion to suspend the rules to do so at this time.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Hogan to suspend the rules to consider confirmations and appointments to the Fire Police and Civil Service Board.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to offer a substitute motion to postpone.

Substitute motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Lester.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, they are not on the agenda now.

Councilman Walford: So, why are we postponing?

Mr. Thompson: So, if you just do nothing, then we’ll add it to the agenda at the next meeting.

Councilman Gibson: Would that be amenable to you Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, that’s the outcome I’m desiring.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, then I think by what we just did, I think we sent a message over to Mr. Thompson to put that on the agenda in two weeks. Thank you Councilman Jackson.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Thompson, are there any other Confirmations and Appointments?

Mr. Thompson: There are none other.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda

Mr. Thompson: We have three items.

The Clerk read the following:

1. Resolution No. 6 of 2005: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Parish of Caddo relative to construction and maintenance of the Southern Roadway Extension of the Shreve Park Industrial Campus and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 3 of 2005: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance by rezoning property located on the southwest corner of Ford and Dale Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-3, Urban, Multiple-Family District, to B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Resolution No. 5 of 2005: A resolution recognizing the Krewe of Sobek for hosting its first Mardi Gras Parade in less than two years of existence and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Lester to add Resolution No(s). 5 and 6 of 2005, and Ordinance No. 3 of 2005 to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move to suspend the rules in order to receive and vote on resolution that’s recently added to the agenda.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Lester to suspend the rules to consider and vote on Resolution No. 5 of 2005. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have a Resolution No. 5 of 2005. Ms. Clerk, do you have a copy of it?

Ms. Pierce: I have it.

The Deputy Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 5 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE THE KREWE OF SOBEK FOR HOSTING ITS FIRST MARDI GRAS PARADE IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS OF EXISTENCE AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

By: Councilman Theron Jackson

WHEREAS, The Krewe of Sobek was established in April of 2003 and hosted its first Mardi Gras parade, in less than two years, on January 8, 2005; and

WHEREAS, Chairperson Ms. Johnnye Kennon said, Queenborough was the perfect site for Sobek’s community-oriented parade and she credits the Queensborough Neighborhood Association for their support in both planning the parade and publicizing the event; and

WHEREAS, The Krewe of Sobek parade featured more than 80 units, including the Shreveport Fire Department Color Guard, Queensborough Neighborhood Association, Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association, Sport City Corvette Club, the T-N-T Stars, West Shreveport Girl Scouts, Top Teens of America, Mr. & Ms. Lakeshore Elementary School, Vintage Car Club of Minden, motorcycle clubs such as the Independent Riders and the Wild Bunch of Shreveport; and the high school marching bands of Booker T. Washington, Woodlawn, and Minden; and

WHEREAS, the parade's grand marshal was state Senator Lydia Jackson. State Representative Roy Burrell and other elected officials also participated; and WHEREAS, The Krewe of Sobek members credit artist Quintin Johnson for creating a wonderful float for the Krewe and decorating it with lavish colors that befit this year's krewe-party theme, "Rio on the Red."

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the City of Shreveport and all its citizens publicly recognize and thank the Krewe of Sobek for hosting its first Mardi Gras parade in less than two years of existence.

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

Councilman Jackson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I want to at this time move That we would adopt Resolution No. 5 please.

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

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Jackson, you have some comments?

Councilman Jackson: Yes sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to say to all the members who are a part of Sobek, obviously all of the members are not here, but there is a contingency of members who are here, and I would like to Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me to ask the representatives or whoever may be here representing the Krewe to come forward today, if it’s okay with this Council.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Jackson, the floor is yours.

Councilman Jackson: Would you please come forward. I know that there are several members who are here and certainly want to invite them forward. Please excuse me for not knowing the appropriate protocol, I’m not sure who the appropriate Royalty are. Cpt Mrs. Frances Flentroy and Ms. Johnnye Kennon who is the Parade Chairman. Again, it looks as if the Queen and I don’t know about the King. If you would, what I’d like to ask for you to do, Ms. Flentroy, if we could, for the sake of time, let me let you introduce who you might feel like introducing and then say what you might want to say from the Krewe of Sobek as well.

Ms. Flentroy: I am Frances Flentroy, and I am the Captain of the Krewe of Sobek, Queen II is Ms. Verna Norris, we have Queen I - Ms. Mattie Moss. We have our Float or Parade Chairperson, Ms. Johnnye Kennon, we have our Royalty Chair, Mr. Mark (unclear). We have Homer Norris, Carl Pierson. We have Linda Holden, we have Violet Anderson, we also have Wanda (unclear), we have Mrs. Luberda Palms and King I, Mr. James Pannel. Oh, and I’m so sorry, I forgot the most important one, Mr. Michael Flentroy.

Councilman Jackson: Now, you mean to tell me that it takes the Krewe of Sobek coming in here to get James Pannel to bow down when he came in?

Ms. Flentroy: On behalf of the Krewe of Sobek, we thank you for this resolution. This has been a dream for us for over a year now. And next year’s parade will be grander and better. And on behalf of the Krewe of Sobek, thank you.

Councilman Jackson: Well, let me just say thank you too not just on behalf of the Council, obviously the resolution will represent that, but also on behalf of the citizens who live in Queensborough, the district that I have the privilege of representing and I’m so excited as I said to Ms. Kennon and to Mr. Moss and to Mr. Pierson as well, I don’t think you could have picked a better neighborhood to have it, and I think after Saturday you also can confirm, that it probably would have been hard to pick a better neighborhood where the people were more enthusiastic and where it was more well received than in Queensborough. So, we thank you for choosing that area of town. I think it says much when a Mardi Gras parades have traditionally been in major thoroughfares and all of that to understand that we keep connected to our communities and I think that’s the future of Mardi Gras and Mardi Gras parades, their ability to stay connected to our communities, so thank you all so much and please receive this resolution.

Councilman Green: Thank you. I’d like to congratulate you all and also, I was invited to participate, and I was under the weather, so I’m sorry I didn’t make it. And to the lady who member of the Krewe who had problems parking at the parking meter, next time you can have my spot in the garage.

Ms. Norris: Mayor Hightower and the Council, I’d like to thank you for your support. Often times, you have people to come before you and complain about the various departments here in the City, but I want you to know, that having worked with Ms. Jeri Cobb and the Mardi Gras Task Force, they have done an outstanding job and they do continue to do an outstanding job for you. Mayor Hightower, thank you for coming out and walking the route, Councilman Jackson, thank you for joining us and Councilman Lester, thank you for working behind the scenes. And Councilman Green, we’re sorry that you were under the weather, you really missed a good parade.

Councilman Green: Yeah, I’m sorry.

Ms. Norris: And thank you so very much for acknowledging the efforts we put forth on last Saturday.

Mr. Pannel: I’d like to clarify for the record that the Mayor came out, but he did not walk the route.

Councilman Gibson: And I think Mr. Pannel’s got a bunch of beads for us afterwards, he always kinda hoards some of those in reserve, so we’ll expect some later.

Mr. Pannel: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure we could give ‘em to you, because we don’t want them thrown up here.

Councilman Gibson: Okay, I understand.

Councilman Jackson: Yeah, I just wanted to commend Councilman Green for giving us his reason for not being there and also for being in the spirit wearing his Mardi Gras bow tie today, so thank you.

Councilman Green: I’m surprised you are tall enough to see it.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, at this time, I’d like to move to suspend the rules to take up item BAC-115-04.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody to suspend the rules to consider BAC-115-04. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have a number of folks that are here on BAC-115-04. I’m going to reserve my comments till the end. This is an issue, an appeal, Shreveport Grocery, Inc., 315 Pierre Ave. There are a number of people here in the Chamber, a lot of them are senior citizens and I would ask that we be allowed to take this matter up so that we can deal with them, allow them to make their comments and move forward if we could. That’s my request.

Councilman Jackson: Yes Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I talked to Pastor Walton, and I thought they were here on C-1-05, which was Ford and Dale Street. I’m sorry, I told them that it wasn’t on the agenda for today, but I’m sorry, it’s 115-04, so it is the appropriate time. I apologize. I was thinking they were talking about the one on Ford and (unclear).

Councilman Lester: I’m sure they’ll be back next meeting.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Jackson, and I do have a number of requests to speak. If for some reason, you have not filled out a slip to speak, I would ask you to step in the foyer and do that at this point and time. You have some time here.

Ms. Judith G. Brayboy: (3217 Timberlane Drive) I’m here against this ordinance or this BAC-115-04. Growing up in Allendale, I grew up right down the street from where they’re planning to put this Shreveport Grocery Store in. Walking to the store, you’d have to walk over people who drink alcohol because they were just sitting there and just in the way. Most of the time, I was afraid to go into the store. If Allendale is about to revitalize itself, I feel that having a liquor store in our area would not help with that. Alcohol is a terrible thing for people who don’t know how to handle it. And if you’ve ever driven through Allendale and seen some of the sights, you would say ‘oh, I really feel sorry for these people, because that’s all they know’. They go to one store and come out and they’ll sit outside the store drinking alcohol or just sitting there trying to get money from other people when they’ve run out of money. So, I just feel that it wouldn’t be successful in our neighborhood for us as a people who attend the church and when we leave church, see them sitting there. We do outreach to people that way, but if they’re constantly are drinking alcohol and things like that, sometimes you don’t want to change your ways. So we are there to help with our outreach program at the St. Rest Baptist Church and we are against this.

Mr. Robert Walton: (4726 Paseo Circle) Mr. Gibson, please allow me to preface what I’m going to say and Easter of 2000, our Church was received a major damage by one of a series of tornadoes, that hit Shreveport and I just want to let the Council know that Mayor Hightower was among the first to visit with us and see if the City could do anything in our behalf. But fortunately we were covered by insurance and we were able to restore the structure with some ½ million dollars. In the same church location, we are asking you to please consider not approving the liquor sale there which is one block from our church. We’re in the process now of a $1.4 (million) project. Trying to outreach the people in that community in order to help make a difference in the revitalization process. So we appreciate you Council, the Mayor in helping us to, as I indicated earlier, to be a part of this positive process of improvement. Thank you.

Mr. Macura Hamilton: (329 Holcomb Drive) Mayor Hightower and this distinguished Council, I speak on behalf of the St. Rest Baptist Church, other churches in the community and law abiding citizens in the community. We strongly oppose the granting of a license to sell liquor in the community. On December 8, 2004 we appeared before the MPC to oppose the request for a license. The license was denied. We appreciate that group for denying that license. So today, we are appealing to you to do the same to vote against this liquor license. On January the 3^rd, we presented to the Council Office a petition from the community of more than 400 names, you probably have copies of that petition. We find it very appalling that someone out of another community would wish to bring something that’s detrimental to the community. A community that is filled with crime, unemployment, poor housing, empty housing, dilapidated housing, drug traffic, that someone would want to come in and bring something in that is not good for the community. This community still has respectable and law abiding citizens who would like to see a positive community redevelopment. Organized efforts have already begun. I live in the Allendale community, I work in every school in the Allendale community and I’ve seen this community deteriorate and something of this nature come in to the community would be detrimental to the community. Many of the church’s night sponsored activities have been cancelled out of fear for the members. We have faith, but we have common sense. A liquor store within a block or two blocks in the area will do little to impress meaningful energy to upgrade our neighborhood. We beg you to please consider our request that you vote against the appeal to grant a liquor license in our community. It will deter all efforts to upgrade an area that needs a positive and upgrading image. As I said earlier, we have submitted a petition since that time, we have collected additional names, and if you would like to have a copy of it, in fact, I’ll just pass it to the Chair person, your cooperation is hereby appreciated. Respectfully submitted, Robert L. Walton, Pastor. Roosevelt Casson, Chairman of the Trustee Ministry, Macular Hamilton, Chairman of the Deacon Ministry, and the Outreach Ministry of the St. Rest Baptist Church. We also have another communication from several other churches in the community. I couldn’t read it, but we are turning them in to the Council’s office.

Councilman Gibson: I think we have that.

Mr. Hamilton: If you’d like to, I can give - - -

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Mr. Hamilton, I appreciate you coming forward.

Mr. Lloyd Anderson: (1554 Myrtle Street) And I’m here representing the Pierre Avenue Neighborhood Association, and we had sent you all a package showing the pictures and everything in that area where alcoholic beverages are already being sold in the area. And this is what it actually looks like around the area at all locations that actually sells those type beverages. And we’re trying to revitalize Allendale area and to continue to see this type of stuff to come along with what’s (unclear) for the future of Allendale, it won’t be a big help. And what we have here, with the statement down at the bottom here says, ‘the picture on the two pages are scenes from the Allendale Neighborhood. The pictures on Page 1 showing existing grocery stores Pierre Ave that sell alcoholic beverages. Each store is plagued with customers who are loitering outside the establishment, the three pictures on Page 3 are the scenes from the rear of the stores that sell packaged liquor and Pierre Ave Outside Pub packaged liquor sales in the community bring crime, littering and loitering. The Pierre Avenue Neighborhood Association request Shreveport City Council to vote NO for this case’.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would just let the Council know that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Williamson are with the Pierre Avenue Neighborhood Association. That’s one of the newer neighborhood associations that have come to the forefront. They were successful in getting some funding for the Neighborhood Investment Program. They’ve done a community garden, and as a matter of fact, they have a piece of property that as I appreciate it is directly across the street from this proposed development. So, they know of which they speak. And they’re doing an excellent job. We’re trying to get more people involved and they’re down here doing a positive thing. So, I just wanted for the Council to know that the monies that we spent - - - a lot of time talking about the monies that we spent for civic organizations, well, this is one of those organizations that’s on the (unclear), that’s doing the job. They’ve got a newsletter that’s been going on for a better part of a year. They’re meeting and they’re doing the things that we want neighborhoods to do. So, I just wanted to give them their accolades while they were here.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Lester, and than you Mr. Anderson for your leadership. Those newsletters, I know all of us get a copy of it up here, and we really appreciate it, they’re really informative. Thank you again.

Councilman Jackson: As Ms. Casson is coming, I wanted you to know, she is a distinguished citizen of District G, and we so want to welcome her today.

Councilman Gibson: So noted.

Ms. Goldie Casson: (3505 Milky Way) I come to speak in opposition to liquor being sold one block from the church in which I grew up in. I’ve been a member of that church for more than 60 years. I have seen what liquor will do for Black neighborhoods. The deteriorating sections (unclear) in these neighborhoods, the No. 1 liability is liquor. And for liquor to be ordained as a sale item in this neighborhood, we do not want. I ask you please to not okay this ordinance, because it’s a deteriorating liability in our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Mr. Edward Julius Caesar: (2105 Wyoming Circle) I just come up here to ask the Council for their help. Also President of the (unclear) Civic Club, ask that this license be denied, application be denied of the Shreveport Grocery, Inc., the southeast corner of Pierre Avenue is 317 Pierre Ave, and the permit from this Council also be denied. Thank you.

Mr. Carl Pierson: (2106 Wyoming Street) Mr. Chairman, and to the Council, the Mayor. I too would just like to register my dissatisfaction and to hope that you would deny the liquor license as well for all of the reasons that have been stated and in addition, more so, I’ve lived in Allendale all my life. And more now than at any other time, the people of Allendale have decided that they want their community back. They’ve decided that. The Pierre Avenue Civic Club, (unclear) Club, Patzman Street Club, the people that are left are saying that they want it back. We cannot rebuild a community with liquor stores on every corner. We cannot do that. So now, as we want you to deny this one, and any other subsequent request to sell liquor, we want those denied as well. We want the opportunity to rebuild our community from within. Certainly, we’re going to need your help, gone need your money too! But we’re certainly going to need your help. That community is adjacent to downtown. We have a beautiful convention center going up. We need that community to match whatever else is going on in this city. And we just ask for you to help us to rebuild our community. Thank you so much.

Councilman Gibson: That’s all the comments we have on this particular item Councilman Lester, on your suspension of the rules.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to suspend the rules if Rev. Austin could fill out a card and I see that he wants to speak, I would suspend the rules to allow him to speak as well. Well, both Rev Austins, I’m sorry. Rev. Calvin Austin and Rev Morris Austin.

Councilman Gibson: This is in reference to the same item?

Councilman Lester: This is the same item.

Councilman Gibson: Well, if I could ask both the Pastors to fill out something.

Councilman Lester: Sharon is going to give them a card.

Councilman Gibson: We’ll go ahead and dispense on the formalities, the paperwork, but we’ll go ahead.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Jackson to allow Pastors Calvin and Morris Austin to speak. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

Rev. H. Calvin Austin: (3546 Pleasant Dr) I stand today before this Body of Men that are the representatives of the seven sections of this the City of Shreveport. My coming today is to be brief, and to the point. 58 years ago, I was born and raised for a portion of my young life in the Allendale neighborhood. I grew up on Clay, Patzman, Dowling, Ford Street, Pine Street, Myrtle Street. I left here in 1963, leaving Shreveport was not by choice, but by necessity. For within in my formative years of being raised in that community, I watched what liquor did to the neighborhood and to that community. And every corner of that community surrounding those main streets and from Ford Street over to Patzman, and from Patzman Street to Dale Street, and from Dale Street to Milam and to Pierre Ave, Allen Avenue, the whole community was inundated with grocery stores/liquor stores. We who were raised in the Allendale Community had only one Black grocery store, and that gentleman could not sell liquor, could not sell beer. Could only sell meat, bread, and cookies. Sad to say, that my being raised in this community and watching what liquor would do to a community, the violence, the shootings, the cuttings, the stabbings, and a lot of the spousal abuse that occurred. And watching this neighborhood succumb to the deterioration, but that’s another matter at another time. Today, I request you learned gentlemen, you councilmen to vote along the recommended lines of the MSZBA, the Metropolitan Zoning Board of Appeals. In doing so, I feel personally, that you not only would send a message that Shreveport is an All American City, but Shreveport is making an effort to have All American neighborhoods. We who are present here today in this assembly of this City Government, we urge you to follow the vote of the Metropolitan Zoning Board of Appeals. I thank you.

Rev. Morris Austin: (2608 Jones Mabry) I’m the minister for Trinity Baptist Church, one block from where the store is trying to get liquor and certainly, I too would vote against. We feel - - - we’ve also filled two pages rather, voting against this you know, receiving liquor that close to the church. And we’re here today to vote against it. We have some members, our Chairman and his wife (unclear) who are here who are members of the Trinity Baptist Church. We’re not saying that we’re against liquor, cause if it’s used in the right manner, certainly, it’s all right. But everybody can’t handle liquor. So we would say, we certainly would vote against it being sold that close to the church, because we’re trying to revitalize the area and I think it’s a good move, because Allendale does need revitalizing. We’ve been at several meetings and certainly we’re meeting to try to improve the area and make some improvements, and certainly we don’t think liquor would be a good idea to be sold that close to the church. And thank you so very much.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Pastor. Appreciate it.

Councilman Carmody: No questions for you sir, but you made an observation, and could I ask those that are in opposition to the approval of the liquor store to please stand up that are in this Chamber? Thank you very much.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, my motion to suspend the rules was not only so that we could actually have comment, but was to take up the issue. And so, having heard from those in opposition before I make my statement, and in an effort to be fair and give equal time, if there is someone that is here that is a proponent or the appellant who actually is asking for the liquor to be sold at this place, if that person or those persons are here, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that they be allowed to come forward and state their case if they would.

Councilman Gibson: Do we have anybody that is in favor of this piece of legislation?

Mrs. Martha McJunkins Tanoli: Yes, I’m Martha McJunkins Tanoli and my husband and I own Shreveport Grocery. We also submitted a list of names of people that had asked us to appeal it and to try to get the liquor. I’m appealing to you as an entrepreneur in the area. I understand what the church is saying. I too disagree with the sale of liquor, but in trying to make a living, we need to provide for the community what they’re asking for. They can walk one block to the left and buy liquor, they can walk two blocks to the right and buy liquor. I just feel like if it’s going to be provided in the area, that we too should have the same option to sell as the neighboring stores. So I mean, we’re asking for the opportunity to be able to provide for our customers what they have asked us to provide.

Councilman Lester: My motion is going to be to uphold the decision of the Metropolitan Planning Commission. And I would make a brief statement and if the other Councilmen want to say something- - -

4. BAC-115-04: 315 Pierre Avenue, SHREVEPORT GROCERY, INC, Martha McJunkins - Tanoli, Southeast corner of Pierre Avenue and Garden, Special Exception Use in a B-2 District, Liquor Store. (A/Lester)

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody to uphold the decision of the Metropolitan Planning Commission.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have spent a lot of time and resources since I’ve been on the Council talking about the revitalization of Allendale. We’ve had a number of meetings. We’ve met with many of the people that have come before this Council today. And we’ve laid out what I believe is a pretty aggressive plan. And I think that we’re going to get it done. Allendale did not get in the position that it’s in overnight. And it’s not going to get fixed overnight. But at the same time, if we continue to do the same things over and over, the decline is going to continue. The fact of the matter is no other area in the City would have the concentration of alcoholic establishments that they have in Allendale and let that pass. It would not happen other places. You cannot go to Broadmoor, or to the Pines Road or to any other area in town where you literally have a convenience masquerading as a liquor store literally on every corner. The law back then served to dis-serve Allendale as a community. We have statutes that say that you cannot have alcohol within so many feet of a church, so many feet of any other educational institutions, but in Allendale, we have just on Pierre Avenue, two liquor stores right across the street from each other, one’s right next to George P. Hendrix, the other one is right next door to the YWCA and we ask and we wonder why, how can we tell our children what’s positive? How can we sell them a positive vision as they have to walk back and forth to school everyday, they have to step over beer bottles, wine bottles, step over people that are doing negative things? It’s time for this to stop. And it’s going to stop and it’s going to stop today. Councilmen, I ask you to support me. I think Commissioner Pierson hit the nail right on it’s head. The people in Allendale have decided that enough is enough. And they want their community back. And as a representative from Allendale, I submit to you on the Council and to them, that I’m not going to be in favor of any alcohol at any establishment in Allendale, so long as I’m on the Council. As a matter of fact, I think the proponent said, two doors down, they can sell alcohol. Well, I want to serve notice to those establishments two doors down, that if in fact, and Mr. Charles Kirkland can back me up on this, if in fact for any reason that they shut down for a day or an hour, their liquor privileges are going to be gone too. Now, you say we can’t do it, and we’ve done it. As a matter of fact, at the next Council meeting, we’ve got a group that’s gonna try to come back with a liquor store in an area on Ford and Dale. This was another one of those liquor stores that was in the neighborhood, that had operated for years and years and under the grandfather clause, they were able to pass it off like a baton. From one cousin to the next cousin, to the next cousin, to the next cousin, and they were allowed to sell alcohol for years and years, knowing that in any other place, they couldn’t do it, but it’s alright in Allendale, because I just drive past and those people want it. That’s amazing that someone would even say that. But that’s what the people want, so we’re going to give it to them. No. That sounds like a drug dealer to me, and I’m not having that. But we have shut those folks down and again, those two establishments on Pierre Avenue, please know that if we shut you down even for a day, then they’re going to be gone too. And we’re going to have the day- - - I think at the last MPC Meeting, Ms. Essie Johnson came forth and said there was a time where the citizens of Allendale did a petition to the then City Council, where they said they wanted Allendale dry. Well, I’m going to do everything in my power to go back to that day when Allendale was dry, when you could walk the streets, not have to worry about getting stuck up, not having to worry about having to step over liquor bottles, and not worrying about stepping over winos. We want a good community just like everybody else, and if this city is going to spend the millions of dollars that we are going to spend to revitalize Allendale including tearing down every shotgun house in Allendale for what it’s worth. This is not going to stand. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: If I may expand a little bit on what Mr. Lester has said, I spent six and a half years on the Zoning Board of Appeals and Mr. Kirkland might be able to help me, but I never recall once the residents in the Allendale wanting alcohol. I recall numerous times, that we had applications and the residents were always opposed to it and I certainly intend to vote to uphold the decision of the ZBA.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Thompson, just so I can clarify, we have a motion and a second, could you give us direction on the vote. Yes for- - -?

Mr. Thompson: If you’re in favor of the decision rendered by the ZBA, then you’ll vote YES, if you’re opposed to it, then you’ll vote NO.

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

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Public Comments (Agenda Items to be Adopted)

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, before we vote, it was my intent to call Mr. Hardy up when we considered the particular piece of legislation, if that’s amenable to the Council, we’ll just wait and call him up

Councilman Gibson: That’s fine, I just have a request for him to speak. Next a request for speaking is on Ordinance No. 243, Pastor Pierce.

Pastor Pierce: (7810 Pines Road) I do own an home here in Shreveport at that address, also I have a residence in the City of Santa Clara, CA and I pastor a church in the City of Oakland, CA and I’m here today, I’m making preparation to make my presence here in the City of Shreveport continually to open a worship center here in Shreveport as well as the redevelopment, the Community Development Center, excuse me. Today we are here to ask the support of Mayor Hightower as well as the Council Members on today for our Community Development Center. We have letters of support from Clergymen in the Shreveport area for this center. It’s a center for struggling mothers with children that have alcohol and drug substance abuse problems and this will give them an opportunity to overcome the problems that alcohol and drugs have brought into the community. I’ve heard a lot in this meeting on today from people that oppose the use of alcohol in a way that is detrimental to our society and of course, if we wanted to bring in the issue of drug abuse, then we know that, that’s an even greater evil on the society in which we live. So, I’m here today to beg the Mayor of Shreveport as well as the Councilmen here today and the support of Shreveport at large to give us the rezoning that we’ve asked for, for this facility which already in the past was providing the same type service under a different designation. It was a psychiatric facility that also provided substance abuse recovery. But however, we’re doing things, but we won’t be providing the psychiatric in house care, but we will be providing healing and an opportunity for those in our community that want to overcome the problems and the plague of drug and alcohol addiction to have an opportunity to do so. So, I’m here today to solicit the support not only of the Mayor and the Council, but for the City at large, which I think we’ve heard here today, that there are so many in our communities today, that oppose alcohol and certainly, I didn’t hear much in regards to drugs on today, but we know that is even a greater evil.

Councilman Gibson: Pastor, I have one question for you. Can you describe to be the professionals that you’re going to have on site from medical to other, because obviously, the people that you’re going to be dealing with are going to have to have a variety of professionals dealing with them and also related security for the facility? What is an overview - - - can you provide an overview of what that’s going to look like?

Pastor Pierce: Well, we have nothing but professional counselors, that we’ll have BSAC certified directors on hand. We’ll have those that as far as - - - we’ll have professionally trained counselors that will deal with those that are in our facility as well as we will out source also any medical issues. We have a physician of residence that we will refer any medical illnesses to. We’ve done everything that’s humanly possible to safeguard those that will be in our facility. And I’m just looking for the support of the Council on today, to help make this a reality, this dream of those that want to come out from under bondage, to have the opportunity to do so.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you sir. I’m familiar with the facility. I had actually done my public service hours in high school there. And at the time, it was a hospital facility for the elderly. And I was curious in that your mission is to provide services to the mothers who are alcohol or drug dependent. But and I haven’t been in the building since the late 1970s, so you gotta forgive me. But I was curious. Do these women come and then stay? Is that what your plan is for them to stay and reside in the building?

Pastor Pierce: That is correct. The women we have, we have been put in for the license sure with the State Department of Health and Hospitals and for 35 beds with the women and children. And they will be housed in the facility. And we’ve put over $100,000 already into the facility to renovate it, to make it a comfortable place, and a place that’s safe and a great environment for the mothers and the children.

Councilman Carmody: When the women, and I’m assuming they check in, is this a program a 30 day, a 45 day- - -?

Pastor Pierce: No, this is a one year program.

Councilman Carmody: A one year program?

Pastor Pierce: Yes.

Councilman Carmody: But then the children will be living there in the facility with their mother while they’re going through the one year program?

Pastor Pierce: That’s right. And these are, that’s if the mothers have children that are 12 and under. 12 and under children will be the facility if the mothers that come into our facility that have children above the age of 12, then they will have to make arrangements with family members or some other arrangements. But we won’t have any children that are above 12 in the facility.

Councilman Carmody: And then again, I’m going back half a lifetime ago, but there did not seem to be any yard that was a part of that hospital facility. Where would the children have the ability to go outside and enjoy being outside?

Pastor Pierce: Well of course, I don’t know, maybe you’re not aware of the area. We have an area in the rear of the facility that’s enclosed.

Councilman Carmody: Yes sir, I remember the courtyard kind of an area.

Pastor Pierce: And there’s an area that we’re going to have for the children to play. And if any of the Council would like to come over, we’d certainly be glad to give the Council a tour of what we’ve done and also the things that we have in mind to do. But we certainly have the children, the area for them to play, we’ll have that for them.

Councilman Carmody: So, the 35 beds then are for the women that are in the one year program as well as their children. How many women do you envision being in at one time?

Pastor Pierce: Well that would depend on how many women that come in and how many children each woman as they are admitted into the program, how many children that the women that come into the program have, because we will not go above those beds that are designated for that number of beds, and that includes the women plus the children?

Councilman Carmody: So, the women will actually be in the same room with their children?

Pastor Pierce: That is correct.

Councilman Carmody: Then is this a service in which the women will have to pay for the services provided by the facility in order to become alcohol/drug free?

Pastor Pierce: No. This will be TANF and federally funded. Under the Faith Based Initiative, this service will be provided. Those that come into our facility know they will not be charged.

Councilman Carmody: I’m sorry you said TANF?

Pastor Pierce: Yes.

Councilman Lester: Temporary Aid to Needy Families.

Councilman Carmody: Temporary aid to needy families? Thank you sir.

Councilman Lester: You’re welcomed.

Councilman Walford: You were describing those who will work there and you used an acronym, and I can already tell that my cohorts down there pick up on some acronyms, but was there certification involved or something when you said the staff would - - - ?

Pastor Pierce: Yes, there is a certification called BSAC. And that’s for, BSAC is, well actually you have to have at least one BSAC certified individual in the facility in order to meet the criteria for the State certification even before you can get license.

Councilman Walford: Okay, that was the next place I was going. You’re going to have to meet certain licensing requirements well beyond the zoning?

Pastor Pierce: That is correct and we have been, we are right at closure of that even as we speak to get the licensing. We’ve been talking and working with the Department of Health and Hospitals and matter of fact, we had a walk-through on just Friday, and they gave us a laundry list the things that we have to do in order to comply for our license sure. And we are in the process of compliance with that and should be ready to do that within the next few weeks.

Councilman Walford: And I assume that, that will then qualify you for the federal monies as well or are the federal monies administered by the State?

Pastor Pierce: Well the TANF money is under the State guidelines, but there is also some funding that’s federally on the Faith Based Initiative that will help support this.

Councilman Walford: That’s kinda where I’m going. So you’re going to have funding to support this?

Pastor Pierce: Yes! Yes, there’ll be funding to support this.

Councilman Walford: That’s where I was going. Okay, very good. Thank you ver much Reverend.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. And in doing this, just to piggyback on something, BSAC - that’s Behavior and Substance Abuse Counselor?

Pastor Pierce: That’s correct.

Councilman Lester: Certified?

Pastor Pierce: That’s correct.

Councilman Walford: That’s what I was after.

Councilman Lester: Right, right. So this is not something that you can just decide tomorrow, I want to be Behavior and Substance Abuse Counselor. There is a certain amount of schooling that is associated with that?

Pastor Pierce: That is absolutely correct.

Councilman Lester: And many of the people you have working for you would, as I appreciate it, in facilities like this, you have to have a certain number of people who have Masters in Social Work and things of that nature?

Pastor Pierce: That is correct. And we’ll have to meet all of the State and Federal guidelines in order to operate. We can’t just bring people, you know, we cannot have unprofessionals giving care to the individuals in the facility.

Councilman Lester: So, as I appreciate it, you’re gonna have people that are certified Behavior and Substance Abuse Counselors, you’re going to have people that are going to have Masters in Social Work? Of course Masters in Social Work predicates, you had one degree in Social Work, and then you went back to school and got a Masters?

Pastor Pierce: That’s correct. Well, I don’t have a Masters in Social Work myself, so I don’t know the actual prerequisites to get from one degree to the other, however, but we will have - - -.

Councilman Lester: But it is a post graduate degree?

Pastor Pierce: Yes.

Councilman Lester: I mean, I just want to be sure because I don’t want any of my Council colleagues to think that the people that are going to be proponents in operating this facility are not people who have the licenses and have the degrees, and have the post graduate hours that are necessary to operate a top notch, top class facility that would be befitting of the area. I just want to make sure. And as I appreciate it, in order to get the money and funds from the State government, there is a level of bureaucracy and red tape, for lack of a better term, that you have to deal with. And you’re going to receive federal funds, so that’s another level of security or, if you will, a check and balance, that you’re going to have to report to, to make sure that all of your Is are dotted and all of your Ts are crossed in order to operate this facility?

Pastor Pierce: That’s absolutely correct Councilman.

Councilman Lester: I just didn’t want that, you know many times, the ethnic persuasion of the proponent seems to dictate the value of what they are doing is different, and I just wanted to make sure that, that’s not an issue, particularly as it relates to people with post graduate degrees. That’s something as a lawyer I have to deal with all the time. I’ll just throw that out there for what it’s worth. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chair. Pastor Pierce, could you clarify something for me. I know you said that you had a residence here in Shreveport and you have one also in CA. And as I read through the brochure that you’ve given me, and I see your picture. And it appears that you’re going to be running this facility. Is that right, or will you be in California, or will you have any hand in this?

Pastor Pierce: Well, I will be have a hand in it. I am Chairman of the Board of Directors of the New Branch of Zion Ministry. And that will be my role in running this facility as well as assuring that everything is done according to the guidelines that’s set by the powers that be. And that is my role in this to make sure that this facility is operated in the best interest for me. This is more than just a matter of dollars and cents. For me, it’s a matter of ministry and outreach. There are a lot of people that are hurting in our society today. And those people need an opportunity to find help, or where there have been wounded. And that is our goal. Is to help hurting individuals to finding healing in a society where there are a lot of these people are outcasts in society. They’ve been written off and they have no where else to turn. A lot of them, their families have even turned against them. And have no place for them. So my mission is one that is to- - - I guess you could say a lot of these people are the lepers of today in regards to as they were considered in biblical times, and they’ve been outcast by society. And we want to make sure that these individuals are not just - - - they are not just disposable.

Councilman Hogan: So you could be considered what you might say a ‘hands on manager’, you won’t be in California trying to run this facility here in Shreveport.

Pastor Pierce: I will be here in Shreveport, but I will be going back and forth periodically, because we do have a headquarters on the West Coast. But I actually have made preparation and am making preparation because I am a native son of Shreveport. I grew up here in Shreveport and I plan to relocate here eventually. That is the goal.

Mr. Tom Arceneaux: (828 E. Kings Hwy) I own property on Jordan Street about half a block from this facility. My concern is what is going to be provided at this facility is not what was applied for. What was applied for is a hospital. The words ‘medical director’, ‘physician’ have not been mentioned today. What I heard is, there will be at least one BSAC counselor at this facility. What this really is, is a residential facility that as a side line provide substance abuse counseling for the people that are there. I urge you all to try down Jordan Street, to drive down Egan Street, to drive down Stoner Ave and look at what is being deposited and what was created as an SPI District for a special historical district for the Highland area. I heard the impassioned pleas of the people of Allendale, ‘help us turn our community around’. And so, I make the same impassioned plea to you today. Let us not create Highland as another Allendale. What we’re doing in the Highland area, because you have large facilities, because of the neglect of this community, have become less valuable. Many organizations are dumping people into this area that end up loitering, that end up drinking, that end up selling drugs, that end up in prostitution, that end up ruining this old and historic neighborhood. I plan to continue my investment there. My wife and I are trying to decide whether even to move to 536 Jordan which is where our home is and we have lived there over the past ten years. Moved in there to help her mother when she was dying of cancer, so I’m very familiar with the neighborhood and have lived there. This is not an idea that has the kind of qualification, the tract record that is likely to be successful. I certain applaud Rev. Pierce and I certainly applaud his sister for their attention and I think facilities like this are needed. But this one does not appear to be in the right location and it does not appear to have the kind of thought out process that will be needed for these women and these children and certainly for this neighborhood. I sent you a lengthy email that set forth our statement. I also provided the Clerk of the Council with a petition. I have two more names to add to it, and there are several people that are here in opposition and rather than take your valuable time by all of us saying the same thing, I would simply ask them to stand. Do you have any questions?

Councilman Gibson: Any questions or comments from Council? Thank you Mr. Arceneaux.

Ms. Mary Okray: (2100 Grimmett Dr) I worked at this facility when it was a hospital/drug rehab. And I was a tech there and I was a cook there. And we had people that came in that had problems with drugs and did not have psychiatric problems that we treated there at that facility. And Pastor Pierce, I think it’s a good idea for him to open that facility because Ms. Clinton has helped me tremendously. I’m a recovering alcoholic and drug addict. And if it had not been for Ms. Pinkie Clinton and people like her, I wouldn’t be here today. I wouldn’t be a productive citizen of this City. And I’m asking you that you allow them to help people, because we have hurting women with their children being abandoned and left daily. And if it was not for people who was willing to stand up and help these women, they would be discarded like I was. I was abandoned by everybody because of my addiction. But Ms. Clinton took me in to her heart and her home and her family and allowed me to stand before some of these women and tell what they have done for me to help me to recover from drugs and alcohol. And I think it would be a blessing for this facility in that community because they have rehabilitation centers all around Highland area. And they have been good for the area. And I go to meetings at some of these facilities. And I see these women and men on a daily basis who come from Bills House, Oakwood and all these other facilities who are helping drug addicts. People like me, that other people just gave up on us. Because these people have faith that we can be changed and we can be given a second chance. That’s why I’m standing up for this facility to be granted permission to be opened there.

Ms. Carolyn Word: ( 723 Eatman Street, Bossier City, LA) Councilmen, and I stand in behalf of this center being opening because my daughter is alive today for the resort of Ms. Pinkie Clinton. And the only thing I regret is that Ms. Pinkie didn’t meet her a little sooner because maybe she wouldn’t have gotten as far in debt as she went down. Because she was at no end. Ms. Pinkie worked with her at another center called Family Success and there she lived with her kids. She has two kids she lived with there. Because she said it doesn’t make sense to take you out of the neighborhood and then you’ve got to come back and exist. So, the kids were able to live with her so that she could go through her day-to-day detoxing and struggles and pressures and it was just a beautiful thing, because I could go and pick her up for church because that was one of the main things that was really missing in her life. She was missing that spirituality. And to have that spirituality fill that void. We would pick her up. She couldn’t come back in unless she had a church program that said she had been to church. So, I really commended her for that. I’ve also applied for employment there and I’m in the process of getting my Masters Degree. And the first thing Ms. Pinkie told me was that I have to have a background check. And to me that stands for a whole lot.

Pastor Dennis Evertt: (3107 Country Club Dr) Thank you for allowing me to come forward the second time to speak in favor of this facility. Pinkie Clinton is probably the best reason that we ought to open this facility. If you read yesterday’s paper, you saw Pinkie there. And when I moved here 12 years ago, Pinkie was on the Street and as the paper stated, was on drugs, selling her body, but as a result of this kind of ministry, went on to finish Southern University, and went on to get a Bachelor’s degree and BSAC certified. She is a success story. This success story can be duplicated over and over again, because, Pinkie, Pastor Pierce and other people understand what it takes to get people cleaned up off drugs. And there was another facility there and I visited members of my congregation in that facility that was there, that did not get any better. What’s the difference in these facilities? Is a facility can be a blessing to people. I urge you to vote- - - I understand trying to preserve the neighborhood. I don’t see anything at this facility that’s going to deteriorate what Highland is trying to do. It’s going to be a blessing, not only for Highland, but a blessing for Shreveport. So, I strongly urge you to support this facility. Thank you.

Mr. Edward Taylor: (101 Milam Street) I’m just here to answer any question the Council may have concerning this case. We’re asking for the rezoning of a property on a southwest corner of E. 70^th Street, right across from Hammel’s Amusement Park and we’re asking for rezoning from RA to R3 and B2.

Councilman Carmody: I believe I’d spoken with the developers. They had called and said that there was a stipulation that they had to solicit the highway department to replace a light. Actually I guess close and abandon one street and then place a red light at another street. Could you apprise the Council of where y’all are on that process?

Mr. Taylor: Yes sir. Before we were able to complete our application with the MPC and get it’s approval, we had to resolve the traffic issue that existed at the E. 70^th, at the Jimmy Davis Bridge right now. And actually the closing of Dixie Gardens, Dixie Meadows, I apologize, is actually separate from us. That’s a separate case. But we had to get a light and a traffic signal and a signal light at the intersection across at the intersection where Milton Hammel’s existing entrance to his property, in order to have safe access, egress and ingress to and from our property. And we’ve done that and the stipulation attached to it that state that we have to generate a certain proposed volume before we’re allowed to be granted that signal.

Mr. Stanton Dossett, III: (1454 Leonard Rd)(P.O. Box 1795, S’port, LA) I’m here on behalf of Red River Corporation who is the owner of the subdivision at the intersection of Audrey and Peach, and I’m here in support of this ordinance and to answer any questions you may have.

Councilman Lester: Just to let you know Mr. Dossett, that at the time, we come to it, I’m going to move that we postpone this. So that - - - I have some additional questions I would like to go over with you.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, which ordinance was that?

Councilman Gibson: 241. Thank you Mr Dossett.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION

TO INTRODUCE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

RESOLUTIONS:

The Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 1 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY-WIDE DRAINAGE - 2001 BONDS PROJECT NO: 00-D015, PARCEL NOS: D-3 & T-3, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has developed the City-Wide Drainage -2001 Bonds, Project No: 01-D015; and

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

WHEREAS, all attempts to amicably acquire a permanent drainage servitude on the property comprising Parcel No: D-3 have failed; and

WHEREAS, all attempts to amicably acquire rental of a temporary construction servitude on the property comprising Parcel No: T-3 have failed: and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the expropriation of this property is necessary for the public interest; therefore, the City Attorney be and he is hereby authorized to institute expropriation proceedings against the owners of record, as they might appear at the time of filing suit, of the property described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto as Parcel No: D-3 to be acquired as a permanent drainage servitude and Parcel No: T-3 to be acquired in rental as a temporary construction servitude for the construction of this project.

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

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

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

RESOLUTION NO. 2 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE DITCH IMPROVEMENTS - MLK AREA PROJECT NO: 00-D003, PARCEL NOS: D-4, D-6, D-149, D-154, T-4 & T-6, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has developed the Ditch Improvements - MLK Area Drainage, Project No: 01-D003; and

WHEREAS, the property described in the legal description, and more fully shown on the plat maps marked as Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are situated in said development; and

WHEREAS, all attempts to amicably acquire permanent drainage servitudes on the property comprising Parcel Nos: D-4, D-6, D-149 & D-154 have failed; and

WHEREAS, all attempts to amicably acquire rental of temporary construction servitudes on the property comprising Parcel Nos: T-4 & T-6 have failed: and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that the expropriation of this property is necessary for the public interest; therefore, the City Attorney be and he is hereby authorized to institute expropriation proceedings against the owners of record, as they might appear at the time of filing suit, of the property described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto as Parcel Nos: D-4, D-6, D-149, & D-154 to be acquired as permanent drainage servitudes and Parcel Nos: T-4 & T-6 to be acquired in rental as temporary construction servitudes for the construction of this project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications 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 Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt.

Councilman Lester: Is Mr. Strong still available?

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Strong, could you please come forward please?

Councilman Lester: Mr. Strong, could you kinda briefly describe this project in the area where it’s going to be going? This is an area that’s been giving us some problem in the MLK area for quite some time. Could you kinda help us?

Mr. Strong: Yes sir. This is a drainage issue that we’ve had for many years. Which is up off Jamison Street that runs through. And what this is, this is to give us the temporary construction servitude to go ahead and do the job. We have had some that have not allowed us to do that, and that’s what we need to draft this, and that’s why we’re going through the expropriation to get the temporary construction servitude to do this. But this is a major drainage project that has been on the books for some time.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Strong. I move for the adoption.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 3 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR MARKHAM STREET AND ROSENWALD STREET IN THE ROSENWALD SUBDIVISION UNIT NO. 3, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

and regular session convened, that the dedication for Markham Street and Rosenwald Street in the Rosenwald Subdivision Unit No. 3 in Section 20 (T18N-R14W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and as shown on the plats attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and the same is hereby accepted as dedicated to the public for public use in the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the original plat reflecting the dedication for Markham Street and Rosenwald Street be recorded in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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 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 RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

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

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION:

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

1. Resolution No. 239 of 2004: A resolution approving certain matters with respect to the sublease of space within the Multicultural Center of the South, approving sinage for the Center and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Postponed December 27, 2004) (B/Walford)

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt Amendment No. 1.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, I believe that I had requested from the Administration clarification from the Bond Counsel regarding several - - - oh good! Mr. Dark’s got his homework in his hand.

Mr. Dark: I didn’t get enough of these for everybody, but - - -

Councilman Carmody: I’ll read it.

Mr. Dark: You can read it.

Councilman Carmody: Dear Mr. Lafitte: In response to Mr. Carmody’s letter of November 19, 2004, we offer the following:

1. We feel like the leased space in the Multicultural Center will have no adverse affect on the tax exempt status of the General Obligation Bonds. We consider the $2,000,000 to be a relatively minor amount of the whole bond issue and any potential private use of the $2,000,000 of bond proceeds does not exceed the 5% limitations set forth in the Internal Revenue Code.

2. We agree with point 2 of Mr. Carmody’s letter, therefore the City should charge market rent to any potential tenants that are not public entities. This (unclear) complies with Article VII, Section 14 of the Constitution of the United States.

3. We agree the Risk Manager should be involved with this process.

Gentlemen, I’ve gotten a copy of this letter, but I think what we were looking for was clarification, the proceeds from the leases, as I read Mr. Brown’s letter are to go to the City of Shreveport?

Councilman Gibson: Is that a question for the Administration?

Councilman Carmody: Yes.

Mr. Dark: That is what the letter says. We’re going to have to visit with the attorneys. The language of the contract, that you all approved that this is actually amending is somewhat unclear as to whether they’re going to collect the rent and use it to operate operating expenses or whether we’re going to get the money. That’s something that we’re going to have to look at. He only has one tenant in mind at the moment. And it’s the African-American Multicultural Tourism Commission. So, we’ll deal with it before they actually start leasing.

Councilman Carmody: Alright, I guess again, my concern would be that we just don’t jeopardize our General Obligation Bonds. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Jackson: In that point 2 that spoke to market rate, I guess market rent, entities that were not public entities, or tenants that were not public entities, that’s, and I’m assuming that’s not withstanding whether those entities are nonprofit or not? It seemed as if one of the seminal concerns initially was to not have nonprofits involved, particularly if they had added any particular risk, or if in fact they were not paying what was market rent. It seems to me that this language seems to suggest that it doesn’t matter who the tenant is. That if it’s not a public entity, and I think that public entity being defined as the City of Shreveport or it’s entities, that they would be charged market rent as well. And obviously the market in downtown Shreveport would be different than the market than any particular market in any particular community around town. And to me, it seems that, that would be prohibitive. Is what we’re trying to do to prohibit them from being a part of it? Or are we some way, shape or form, if we didn’t charge what was “market rent” for a nonprofit, would that in some way, shape or form jeopardize the City’s status in this as the owner of the building, I guess is my question? And I thought that the market rate would apply to people who are for profit entities, and that was the major concern. But it doesn’t seem like that’s addressed in what we received.

Councilman Gibson: Well Councilman Jackson, are you addressing that to our legal counsel? Or, to Councilman Carmody in terms of his letter?

Councilman Jackson: Well, I guess my concern is the letter that we have received that the Mayor has just given back- - - well that we’ve gotten from Mr. Brown to Mr. Lafitte, and maybe Mr. Lafitte then ought to be the - - ?

Councilman Gibson: Well, is Mr. Lafitte in the audience?

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, he’s not. But I think clearly, Mr. Lafitte’s response to Mr. Carmody’s questions are that no matter, as you said Councilman Jackson, no matter who is subleasing in a City owned building, shall pay market rate rent. And that’s not only good business for the City, that’s also exactly what Multicultural wanted as well. They wanted rent subsidies. Someone to help them foot the bills. So there was never any intention either by the City, nor by Multicultural to do less than market rent. What their mission is, is to go out though and bring in compatible entities to help I guess enhance what Multicultural does in that building and organizations again, that can contribute to the overall concept. So there was never, I don’t think any intent to give rent space away.

Councilman Jackson: But if that’s the case Mr. Chairman, I guess my concern is if that’s the case, then what’s the big deal with whoever it is. It seems to me if its going to be market rent, it ought to be open to the public. If it’s going to be market rent, and particularly if what they are concerned about are subsidies that will help them with the operational costs of the building, and I don’t know why we have to be so selective with regards or even be concerned about being selective. I mean, if we’re going to do a good business deal, a good business deal, first come, first serve and whoever can pay the market rate and notwithstanding what synergy they may bring to any particular building. If synergy is the issue, then I also have to be concerned about what’s the big deal with the whole idea of market - - - it just seems like we’ve got two arguments going on. And if in fact the crux of the argument is to run it like a business and to do what is the best plausible thing for any business, then it ought to be open to whoever can pay the market rent.

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, and I 100% agree with you, however initially there had been some resistance from the private sector, i.e. downtown building owners, that were concerned about Kinkos or somebody like that moving in the building. So I think there was an effort by multicultural at that time to say “No, no, no. That’s not what we’re after. We’re after the African-American Chamber, or someone that can again be compatible with what their mission might be”. The Chamber for instance charges what I believe to be a market rent to the United Way, which is a City owned building. So that it’s really the same type of thing. The Chamber was going out to seek Kinko’s to move into the space. So I think we have the same type scenario going on here. And it’s not that Multicultural or the City wants to get in competition with downtown property owners. That’s not the intent, I think, from either side. Again, it’s to create a synergy of like entities that will enhance the mission of the Multicultural Center.

Councilman Walford: They Mayor’s kinda said what I had heard from some downtown interest. They were concerned that there would be a less than market rent situation. I think Mr. Carmody had heard the same thing because we had discussed it. As long as we’re charging market rent, I have not problem with it at all. I think that was the resistance that I was hearing was that no ‘bargain basement rents’ in competing with other buildings. So, I think that’s addressed.

Councilman Jackson: I had one other thing. Didn’t in our amendment, and maybe the Clerk can help me understand specifically. In the bottom line that one of the things that we were requesting was that the Council review tenants, potential tenants to go into the building.

Mr. Thompson: I think Mr. Dark answered that yesterday, by saying that a list of the potential clients had been submitted in a letter and that if there were additional people, they would have to be brought to the Council.

Councilman Jackson: And I guess that’s my, and I’m back to that again now. Based on what I’m hearing as the discussion now with regards to being sure that we safeguard the competitive forces, if you will, that the downtown business owners may be concerned with, why then would the Council need to have the final approval if we are charging market rent, nobody can come in below market rent, we’ve already agreed to - - -. Are we the last voice on what creates synergy with the Multicultural Center, and if so, then I guess why? But what is the purpose then, I thought I understood, but I’m understanding less and less the more we talk about it, what is the purpose then for the Council Meeting to be the final authority on whoever the subleasees may be at any given time?

Councilman Walford: We’re not according to- - -

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Jackson, I’m going to bring Ramon Lafitte forward, I see he’s stepped in the room. Obviously we’re into some legal issues here in terms of what can and can’t be done. So Mr. Jackson would you like to address your particular comments to legal counsel in terms of this letter that has been provided to us?

Councilman Jackson: We may not have to get that deep. All I’m trying - - - what I’m asking is, if 239 as it has been postponed since December 27^th, in there we talked about signage and those things, but it seemed to me that one of the seminal matters in that, in 239 was that we would in fact, the Council would approve whoever the subleasees may be going into this building that we would need to approve that. Is that your understanding of what we were doing with 239?

Mr. Lafitte: That’s my understanding. And particularly in light of some discussions that the Clerk referenced earlier, some discussions that were had on yesterday. So, it is my understanding that the Council will have final approval.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you and I guess my concern gentlemen, is if we in fact are establishing that it needs to be market based rent, we are in agreement with that, to have every tenant or potential tenant who is going to or is proposing to rent space in this building come before us, those names come before us to be approved by us, to me is tantamount to micro-managing. And I just think that if we set the policy in place, that we’ve gone beyond policy making if we’ve got to review every tenant that comes into a building that happens to be under the auspice of the City of Shreveport, it seems to me that we’ve gone over and beyond policy making into what is dangerously close, in my opinion, to micro-managing.

Councilman Walford: I think we’re clear of that now. Don’t go away Mr. Lafitte, because I’m fixin to read to you what this Resolution says. As I understand it, it says that it would allow the center to execute subleases with named entities provided that the form of the subleases shall be approved in advance by the City Attorney. So it appears to me that the Council no longer has to approve those. You approve the form of the lease.

Mr. Lafitte: Right. As far as the letter is concerned, it does not indicate that the Council will have final approval, but that was, as I recall, some discussion yesterday about the Council having approval and I don’t know if maybe the Council is going to add an amendment or what the case may be.

Councilman Walford: Well, as I read the resolution as it is now, the Council does not have to have the final approval. It merely has you approve the form of the subleases.

Mr. Lafitte: Yes, as it is presently written, with no amendments.

Councilman Walford: Then that’s where we are.

Councilman Green: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I think Mr. Thompson, our Clerk wanted to interject something.

Mr. Thompson: To give some background on this, when the Council authorized the execution of the agreement between the City and the Multicultural Center, it added the requirements that the Center’s sinage be approved by the Council and that any subleases be approved by the Council. At that time, the issues as to whether market rates would have to be charged and those other issues had not been articulated. So, the reason that it has to come before the Council is because of the agreement that we have with the Multicultural Center. Now that we have articulated and have agreed on most of those issues, it might be in order to go back and to amend that agreement. But that’s what would need to be done. Because that’s what triggers, and that’s what requires it now.

Councilman Green: Thank you. I don’t have any questions for him to answer. I’ll try to answer Councilman Jackson’s question that he was asking. I think more than anything it’s a matter of there are people downtown with property and they want to make sure that they don’t lose their money and basically that’s the bottom line and the next thing is- - - what brings that about is a profound statement that Councilman Lester made sometime ago. “Are we going to remain a town, or are we going to move to a City”? And basically we want to make sure that we keep that control so therefore, since we have the opportunity to have friends in high places and we want to make sure that we keep control, so that we’ll keep our money in place and nobody will take it and that’s the bottom line to it. It all boils down to who controls the money.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’ll defer. I think our Clerk has articulated the issue. I think where Councilman Jackson is going and his concern would best be addressed at probably our next meeting, if I’m reading him correctly is, committed to the agreement. Because the agreement already leaves out what our relationship is. And now that we know what everything is, I think we should amend that relationship by contract and move on.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Lester. Then could I ask for a postponement for two weeks on that?

Councilman Jackson: That would be my motion Mr. Chairman.

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Walford to postpone Resolution No. 239 of 2004 until the next regular meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

Mr. Thompson: On the one that we just did, for the record, I don’t believe that the amendment was adopted and it will be carried over to the next meeting.

Resolution 250 of 2004

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE LEDBETTER HEIGHTS ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shreveport, by Resolution No. 226 of 1980, created and established the Shreveport Redevelopment Agency pursuant to the provision of Act 179 of the 1968 Louisiana Legislature; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shreveport Redevelopment Agency to assume the powers and function of a redevelopment agency created pursuant to sub-paragraph “E” of La. R.S.33:4625; and

WHEREAS, the 1999 Shreveport Comprehensive Revitalization Strategies recommended the development of a redevelopment plan for certain portions of the Ledbetter Heights neighborhood to reinvigorate improvements and renovations in the inner city; and

WHEREAS, this Council recognizes that a slum and blighted area remains slum and blighted until it is redeveloped to its highest and best use; and

WHEREAS, this Council has determined that within the area outlined in Exhibit “A” hereof there exist conditions of substantial numbers of residential and non-residential buildings or improvements which are dilapidated, obsolete, and in advanced stages of deterioration, and considerable areas of open land which, because of its location, is necessary for sound community growth.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the area contained within the hatched red lines on the map attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit “A”, be and the same is hereby declared to be a redevelopment area, as defined by Ls. R.S.33:4625, and the same shall be designated as the Ledbetter Heights Entertainment District.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Redevelopment area is hereby found and declared to be a slum and blighted area, as defined by La. R.S.33:4625..

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

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

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

Councilman Walford: I’d like to ask Mr. Ron Hardy if he would come forward and talk to us about what is proposed for that district.

Councilman Gibson: Mr. Hardy, please come forward.

Councilman Walford: Ron, could you just give us an overview of what’s planned?

Mr. Ron Hardy: (720 Hope St) The big picture is that we became a Community Development entity. Which is established through the New Market Tax Credit on federal programs. And we’re proposing to first of all, create - retain the historic aspect of Shreveport and Ledbetter Heights. That’s the first thing. We’re seeing, I know I heard Councilman Lester say about tearing down those shotguns. But those shotguns are (earlier on a different matter), but those shotguns are very historic buildings. They have a lot of history. Actually, they are African designed. They come from Africa. The design of which the Haitians brought them here to Louisiana. And in Barbados, it cost $100 a night to stay in one. But anyway, this area that we’ve chosen, Milam, Lawrence, Oakland, and Holcomb, all the Council Members, I’ve invited, I’ve given some personally to some and I’ve sent the plans out to the other members. We want to create investment opportunities for investors outside of this community. For people who want to invest in the community and the ideas of people within the community. And people who are currently needed to have a little economic development. These are, our big picture plan is that there’s a lot of ideas. I’m a man of ideas, I know people with ideas all the time. Lot of ideas and no money. So the big picture plan is that the ideas of how do we create a center here that when you drop in at Pete Harris, a lot of people come from out of town to Pete Harris, a lot of people come from out of town to my establishment. And there is nothing else to do but eat some stuffed shrimp and maybe go party at a club. But there’s other things to be done in this type of area. My expertise is in music. I’m 47 years old. I’ve been a musician for the last 30 years. I have a lot of friends who want to come to Shreveport. Different artists. We propose to build a building that will be able to function as the Ebony Cultural Center function. We propose this house on 1428 Oakland which belonged to the Mayor of Shreveport back in 1896 to 1900, Mr. Keller I believe it was. And we propose to restore this, turn it into a corporate office for our nonprofit which is ‘Playaz and Playettes, Inc., and for profit business which is ‘Red Beans and Rice Productions’, our music company. Establishes businesses that could work around that entity of the music. Also shops where say persons stop in town, they can move around. We propose an amphitheater in the center which as I heard some other people speaking from Allendale, they’re building gardens. Which the amphitheater and the park in the middle would be a beautiful farmer’s market. Hair shops, I mean, people come in and they want to get their hair fixed or a lot of people buy hair. Buy T-Shirts. We could sell Civil War relics. But to create a historic district for Shreveport that would retain the integrity of the history of this City. Plus be able to take this program from- - -the CD program is for low income individual to profit from it. Their ideas where a pool of investors put money together and their ideas to be materialized in terms of creating business that they can create their own jobs. I want to make sure you understand where I’m coming from.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Mr. Hardy.

Councilman Walford: I think that covers it. Ron, thank you very much for helping us with that.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, I think the idea to revitalize Ledbetter Heights is a great one. There is a tremendous amount of history down there. There is a tremendous entertainment legacy in terms of Huddie Ledbetter the whole nine yards. I’d like to see that happen. However, every last shotgun house. Hey, if we can contact the Government of Barbados, I will pass the hat to put ‘em on a truck to send it to ‘em. Every last shotgun house.

Mr. Hardy: But for tourism, they’re beautiful.

Councilman Gibson: I have one question for the Councilman of the District. In terms of approving this, I understand Mr. Hardy would apply for some federal monies. Any monies from the City that would be coming?

Councilman Walford: Not so far. You just gave him the idea that I’m sure he’ll be asking for something.

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

The following resolution was offered by_________ and seconded by_________.

RESOLUTION NO. 253 of 2004

A resolution making application to the State Bond Commission for approval of the issuance by the City of Shreveport of not to exceed Sixty-Two Million Dollars ($62,000,000) aggregate principal amount of General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2005A in one or more series, for the purpose of refunding certain maturities of the $87,000,000 City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana General Obligation Bonds, Series 1999A.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana (the “City”) has previously issued its $87,000,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1999A (the “Prior Bonds”). The primary purpose of the Prior Bonds was to finance the construction, acquisition, improving and equipping of the Shreveport Convention Center.; and

WHEREAS, in order to realize interest cost savings and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14-A of Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended (the "Act") and other constitutional and statutory authority, the City of Shreveport, Louisiana (the "Issuer") governed by the City Council (the "Governing Authority") intends to proceed with the issuance of not exceeding $62,000,000 aggregate principal amount of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2005A of the City (the "Bonds"), to be issued in one or more series to effectuate the refunding of all or part of the Prior Bonds,

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

SECTION 1. Preliminary Approval of Bonds. For the purpose of providing funds to refund the Prior Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the City intends to proceed with the issuance of the Bonds. The details of the Bonds shall be established by subsequent ordinance adopted by this governing authority. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to effectuate the refunding of certain maturities of the Prior Bonds and pay costs of issuance. The Bonds shall be general obligations of the City as issuer of the Bonds, payable from and secured by ad valorem taxes levied and collected in the manner provided by Article VI, Section 33 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. The Bonds shall be issued in an amount not to exceed $62,000,000 and shall bear interest at a rate of not to exceed Six percent (6%) per annum, maturing no later than fifteen (15) years from the date thereof and shall be issued under the authority previously cited in this section.

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

SECTION 3. Employment of Bond Counsel. This governing authority finds and determines that a real necessity exists for the employment of special Bond Counsel in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. Casten & Pearce, A Professional Law Corporation, Shreveport, Louisiana is hereby employed as Bond Counsel to perform comprehensive legal and coordinate professional work as Bond Counsel with respect to the issuance and sale of the Bonds. Said Bond Counsel shall prepare and submit to this governing authority for adoption of all of the proceedings incidental to the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of such Bonds, shall counsel and advise this governing authority as to the issuance and sale thereof and shall furnish its opinion covering the legality of the issuance of the Bonds. The fee of said Bond Counsel shall be fixed at a sum less than the maximum fee allowed by the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana’s fee schedule for comprehensive, legal and coordinate professional work in connection with the issuance of general obligation bonds and based on the amount of the Bonds actually issued, sold, delivered and paid for, plus “out-of-pocket” expenses, said fees to be contingent upon the issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds. A certified copy of this resolution shall be submitted to the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana for his written approval of said employment and of the fees herein designated, and the Director of Administration is hereby empowered and directed to issue vouchers to said Bond Counsel in payment for the work herein provided for upon completion of the work herein specified and under the conditions herein enumerated.

SECTION 4. Investment Banker. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. of New Orleans, Louisiana, is hereby appointed and employed as investment banker/underwriter in connection with the Bonds, any compensation to be subsequently approved by the Issuer and to be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds and contingent upon issuance of the Bonds and the Bond Counsel is authorized and directed to prepare necessary documents appertaining thereto and to present them for further action by this Council.

SECTION 5. Financial Advisor. Government Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. of Baton Rouge, Louisiana is hereby appointed and employed as financial adviser in connection with the Bonds, any compensation to be subsequently approved by the Issuer and to be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds and contingent upon issuance of the Bonds and the Bond Counsel is authorized and directed to prepare necessary documents appertaining thereto and to present them for further action by this Council.

SECTION 6. Publication. This resolution shall be published in The Shreveport Times, a daily newspaper published in Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and that, as provided by the Act, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of such publication, any person in interest may contest the legality of this Resolution and the Bonds to be issued pursuant hereto and the provisions securing the Bonds. After the said thirty days, no person may have any right of action to contest the validity of the Bonds or the provisions of this Resolution, and all of the Bonds shall be conclusively presumed to be legal, and no court shall thereafter have authority to inquire into such matters.

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

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, before we leave the resolutions that can be adopted today, the amending Resolution No. 234 is listed on your agenda as being for introduction, however, the way it has now been drafted, it can be adopted today and the Bond Counsel ask that it would be adopted today.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green to suspend the rules to consider Resolution No. 4 of 2005. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 4 OF 2005

A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 234 OF 2004 RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECOVERY PROJECT AND RELATED MATTERS AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Resolution 234 of 2004 (“Prior Resolution”) authorized the City to establish the Neighborhood Recovery Project (the “Project”); to obtain a loan from Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) relative to the Project; and provided for other matters related thereto; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to such authority, the City of Shreveport is requesting a $2,000,000.00 loan from Fannie Mae to implement the Project; and

WHEREAS, approval of the loan will require the approval of the State Bond Commission (“Bond Commission”); and

WHEREAS, the Bond Commission has requested certain clarifications to the original resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Resolution 234 of 2004 is hereby amended as follows:

1. The following is added as a new “WHEREAS” paragraph after the fourth (4^th) WHEREAS” paragraph in the Prior Resolution:

“WHEREAS, Section 1430 of Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Issuer to issue revenue bonds or certificates of indebtedness covering its cost of financing any authorized purpose and pledge related revenues derived from such project or facility; and”

2. The following language is added as a new paragraph in the first (1^st) “BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED” paragraph in the Prior Resolution:

“For the purpose of providing funds to finance the Project in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Issuer intends to proceed with the issuance of the Certificates in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000 (the “Certificates”). The proceeds of the Certificates will be used to finance the Project and pay costs of issuance of the Certificates. The Certificates shall bear interest at a variable rate of 30 day LIBOR plus 230 basis points, with a maximum rate of twelve (12%) percent, maturing no later than five (5) years from the date thereof and shall be issued under the authority previously cited herein.”

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 ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

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

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS (not to be adopted prior to Jan 25, 2005)

1. Resolution No. 6 of 2005: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Parish of Caddo relative to construction and maintenance of the Southern Roadway Extension of the Shreve Park Industrial Campus and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Carmody to introduce Resolution No. 6 of 2005 to lay over until January 25, 2005 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (not to be adopted prior to Jan 25, 2005)

1. Ordinance No. 1 o f 2005: An ordinance declaring certain adjudicated property to be surplus and to authorize the Mayor of the City of Shreveport to sell the City of Shreveport’s Tax interest in a certain surplus adjudicated property, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 2 of 2005: An ordinance authorizing the incurring of debt and issuance of not to exceed Sixty-Two Million Dollars ($62,000,000) of General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2005A, of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana; prescribing the form, terms and conditions of said Bonds; designating the date, denomination and place of payment of said Bonds; providing for the payment thereof in principal and interest; and providing for other matters in connection therewith.

3. Ordinance No. 3 of 2005: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance by rezoning property located on the southwest corner of Ford and Dale Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-3, Urban, Multiple-Family District, to B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green to introduce Ordinance No(s). 1 , 2 and 3 of 2005 to lay over until January 25, 2005 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE (numbers are assigned ordinance numbers)

1. Ordinance No. 191 of 2004: A Supplemental Ordinance amending and supplementing Resolution No. 131 of 1984 (the "General Bond Resolution") adopted on June 12, 1984, as amended; providing for the issuance of not to exceed $12,000,000 principal amount of Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2004 Refunding Series C, of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, pursuant to the General Bond Resolution; approving and confirming the sale of such bonds; prescribing the form, fixing the details and providing for the payment of principal of and interest on such bonds and the application of the proceeds thereof for refunding certain bonds issued for the purpose of constructing and acquiring extensions and improvements to the City's combined waterworks plant and system and sewer plant and system (the "System") of the City; making application to the State Bond Commission; and providing for other matters in connection therewith. (Postponed December 27, 2004)

Mr. Thompson: I believe that 191 is to be removed from the agenda.

Mr. Dark: That’s correct.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford to remove Ordinance No. 191 of 2004 from the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

2. Ordinance No. 201 of 2005: An ordinance creating and establishing a “No Parking Anytime” zone on either side of the 2400 block of Leslie Street and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (G/Jackson)

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

3. Ordinance No. 202 of 2005: An ordinance creating and establishing a “No Through Truck Route” on Idema Street between Linwood Avenue and Mt. Zion Road and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

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

4. Ordinance No. 203 of 2005: An ordinance amending Section 42-216 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to license permits and business regulations and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

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

5. Ordinance No. 204 of 2005: An ordinance amending Chapter 94 of the Code of Ordinances relative to utility rates by repealing Ordinance 187 of 2004 and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on December 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Hogan to adopt.

Councilman Gibson: The Chair will pass the gavel to discuss this item. First, I want to apologize to my constituents in District D for making a mistake on casting a vote regarding water rates. At last month’s city council meeting, legislation was introduced by the Hightower administration that I incorrectly voted regarding an accelerated water rate increase. In the past, I have voted consistently against these accelerated water rate increases. My no vote has been based on the fact that the Hightower administration presented to the 2002 city council that the citizens of Shreveport would expect a 41% increase that would be spread evenly over a five year period. After reviewing this 2002 water rate increase proposal, it is obvious that improper financial revenue forecasting by the administration has lead to compressing the total 41% increase in less than two years, the last rate increase of 10% taking place on January 1, 2005. This last acceleration will find citizens of Shreveport paying 25% more on the water bills in less than a year. I have heard from a large cross section of my constituents at town hall meetings, ranging from Cedar Grove to Southern Trace, that “changing the rules in the middle of the game” is not what they counted on and when I had a chance to reflect on my voting error I realized that this administration has mismanaged the resources that taxpayers pay to the City. The taxpayers deserve accountability with these rate increase. In 2002, the financial projections that were presented to the 2002 City Council for a 41% rate increase were based on a hope and a prayer, the hope that Shreveport would continue to experience hot/dry summers, like 1999 & 2000, and a prayer that the citizens would continue to use record levels of water. This is not how you run or manage our city resources. I have expressed numerous concerns to the administration to please provide worse case financial projections when it comes to water rates, hotel, convention center, convention center hotel and the entertainment district, and not best case or pie in the sky projections. The administration’s track record is shaky at best, resulting in the taxpayer having to cough up more of their hard earn money. In addition, the taxpayer does not keep getting large surprises in their monthly water bills. Now, we on council hear that layoffs could result and major deficits could occur. A few months ago, I asked Tom Dark how did the city get itself into a 4.5 million deficit within the Water/Sewer department and he stated that the administration signed contracts for water/sewer improvements based on future revenue and the revenue did not occur. Obviously, the financial projections were shaky at best, but who within the administration made the final call to spend money that we did not have? Again, make a decision and ask for forgiveness later is the Hightower administration’s motto - Well, what about the average citizen, especially those citizens that are on fixed incomes and low income budgets. What do we tell them. Per capita income levels are some of the highest in my district and I would ask my colleagues to reflect on what comprises their district’s family per capita incomes. Are you willing to look the other way? We do have an alternative to raising our citizen’s water rates, of which after repealing these rate increases, we as a council can direct the administration to begin a fast track process to offer a general obligation election in order to have the public approve funding for water & sewer improvements versus rate hikes. Like the pay increases for the police/fire pay increases, if sold properly the general obligation bonds will pass. This legislation to repeal the water rate increases is about regaining the confidence and trust of the public which in my opinion is paramount. And right now the Adminstration’s mismanagement of this 41% rate increase has created a distrust within the public of how we spend there tax dollars. It is unfortunate to have to revisit this issue, but I believe that we as a council need to stand up for the right thing. Yes, I am chair of the infrastructure committee, and we need every dollar available to spend on infrastructure improvements , but we all know that the lion share of debt incurred by this city in the last six years has gone to non-city services and non-infrastructure improvements, something that a 14 year experienced city political leader, like Mayor Hightower should know better. Not only did Mayor Hightower submit proposals for these non-city services like the convention center & hotel, Independence Bowl, Downtown Entertainment District

Councilman Walford: Point of Order Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Point of Order Councilman.

Councilman Walford: According to Roberts’, your debate is supposed to be on the merits of- - -

Councilman Gibson: This is the merits of it and the Chair rules that it is the merits.

Councilman Walford: I would call for a Council vote on that Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Some have called this politics at its worse,- - -. Mr. Walford, you have said the citizens of Shreveport’s pocketbook for granted is politics at it worse and I will suggest to you that Shreveport’s out-migration problem is directly attributed to the highest tax level in North Louisiana, especially when you factor in property re-evaluations, the Stelly Bill and our water rate increases. Hightower- - - well I sure appreciate that Councilman.- - - save face with my constituents, you bet I am because

Councilman Lester: Point of Order Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: I recognize your Point of Order.

Councilman Gibson: One thing you have never understood as the Mayor of Shreveport is that you don’t mess with a person’s personal finances. And you also provide the citizens with a say on how they will be taxed. Thank you again for your consideration on this matter. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. First of all, just to go back Councilman Walford asked for a Point of Order and a ruling on whether or not Councilman Gibson’s comments were germane under the ruling. As the Chairman, not Councilman Gibson, because he has given the Chair to Councilman Hogan. Councilman Hogan has the responsibility or had the responsibility of making a ruling on whether or not that was germane. That did not happen. I don’t have a problem necessarily with Councilman Gibson or anybody else reading into the record any prepared statement. However, if in fact a point of order has been requested, the Councilman Hogan as the Chairman, you have a duty and a responsibility to move on that and not let us deteriorate. And I did not want to interrupt Councilman Gibson, because I wanted him to make sure that he got his whole statement in, but I just wanted to speak to the Chair, and say that you needed to make a ruling and you need to make a ruling even at this point on whether or not Councilman Gibson’s statement was germane. And after we do that, then in fact, if there is some question as to whether or not it was germane, then there can be a vote or what you. But I think that needs to be done. So, if your ruling is that it was germane and fine, but I think once at the time that the point of order is called, you have a responsibility to rule on an issue. No disrespect to Councilman Gibson, he did have the floor, he wasn’t operating as Chairman. That would be Councilman Hogan. Thank you.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Councilman Lester. I was trying to gain control, but maybe I’m not aggressive enough. But anyway, related to this issue, Councilman Walford, I appreciate your point of order and I rule that the comments were in order, they were relevant to the discussion at hand.

Councilman Walford: And I believe I challenged that Mr. Chairman and asked for a vote.

Councilman Lester: Correct. And at this time, you have to

Councilman Hogan: Okay, Mr. Thompson, could you give us some direction on voting. We all vote on whether or not this was in order?

Mr. Thompson: The motion - - - what is your motion Mr. Walford?

Councilman Walford: Challenging the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Thompson: Okay, so if you agree with Mr. Walford that the ruling was incorrect, you vote yes. If you think that the ruling was correct, you vote no.

Motion by Councilman Walford to challenge the ruling by the Chair. Motion approved by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Gibson, Green, and Hogan. Nays: Councilman Jackson. 1. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Carmody. 1.

Councilman Gibson: My vote was a No. I’m sorry.

Councilman Jackson: Here we go. If you agree with the Chairman, the vote should have been No. If you agree with what the Chairman did, including the Chairman, the vote should have been no. If we uphold what the Chairman did. And I think there may have been some misunderstanding Mr. Clerk with regards to how they should have - - - even though I think it was clear. The way you explained it I think. But judging from those votes, it could have not been clear.

Councilman Lester: No, it was clear to me. I believe that the ruling that Councilman Hogan gave that this was in fact germane, was the correct ruling and I voting accordingly. I voted yes. I felt it was germane. Now if those folks felt that it was not germane, then their vote should have been vote.

Councilman Jackson: Oh, I thought he said - - -

Councilman Walford: No, no, no, no.

Councilman Lester: But if you agreed with the Chair - - -

Councilman Walford: A yes vote was a vote with me.

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct.

Councilman Jackson: A no vote was a vote with Councilman Hogan.

Councilman Gibson: Well, I’m going to ask for a re-vote. I’m going to take back over the Chair and ask for a re-vote on this. Mr. Thompson, could you ask or clarify the motion.

Mr. Thompson: It depends on what the motion is.

Councilman Gibson: What is the motion Councilman Walford?

Councilman Walford: I disagree with the ruling given by the Chair. I don’t believe that the comments being made on Convention Center, etc, etc. were germane and addressed the merits of the particular legislation.

Mr. Thompson: So, you motion was to overturn the ruling of the Chair?

Councilman Walford: That is correct.

Councilman Gibson: And would you like - - -?

Councilman Lester: But that is not the motion that he stated.

Mr. Thompson: He stated it - - - what he just said.

Councilman Lester: Now. Right.

Mr. Thompson: And what I tried to articulate was that if you agreed with his position, you would vote Yes.

Councilman Lester: His position being?

Councilman Gibson: And were you gonna state - - - if Councilman Walford, could you state specifically what you felt was not germane to the statements?

Councilman Walford: I’d have to go back and have the Clerk read it Mr. Gibson.

Councilman Hogan: Okay Mr. Thompson at this point, would it be proper for us to call for another vote?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, I think that the motion would be - - - to put it another way, to overturn the decision of the Chair.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Walford: Correct.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, I call for the vote. Any more discussion?

Councilman Gibson: A Yes vote is to overturn?

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct.

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

Mr. Thompson: So, the decision of the Chair is upheld.

Councilman Jackson: His speaking has ceased. Am I correct? He’s finished making his statement, is that correct?

Councilman Gibson: That’s correct.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Thompson, Councilman Gibson has the Chair again now. Correct?

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct.

Councilman Jackson: I wanted to say and I wanted to not make any comments and I need to say, I’d asked my colleague, our Chairman two weeks ago, whether or not when we came to 204, if we were simply going to take a vote on it or were we in fact gonna get into deep discussion about it, or was there anything that’s going to be said. It was suggested to me at that time that we were not going to have any discussion, we were just going to vote. That obviously has not happened. And I would want to express my disappointment in a) that not happening. Because to politicize it even worse, I think does no good for anybody. However, with what’s being said, being said, I have to just suggest that while the commentary was ripe with criticism. The thing it lacked obviously either creativity or ideas. I think we can ill afford at this time to continue to move forward in a position of governing with chastisements, but no thinking. With penalizing conversation, but no ideas. I think when we suggest that whether it’s bad forecasting, - - - you know heavy is the head that wears the crown. And whoever sits in those seats, if there is somebody who knows exactly what’s going to happen over the next four years, they deserve to be Mayor. Because to know what’s going to happen with regards to revenue, and with regards to expenses, I mean, it’s amazing to me if there is a person on this dais or anywhere else who knows with some certainty what’s going to happen. That’s the idea of budgeting. At it’s very core, it suggests that you forecast and you budget based on projections. And whether we like them or not, if the projections are wrong, do we, in my opinion, in the name of pointing fingers and getting back, penalize the people by saying ‘well, lets suck it up. You’ll live with less quality of water and poorer sewer systems, because it’s his fault’. Now I don’t know who wins in that, but I don’t think the people in District G win for that. I don’t like the fact that the forecast was wrong, but I have to lay that at the feet of God and Nature. That it did not rain as much, and that they could not predict that it will not rain as much. Perhaps it would make us feel better if we had a meteorologist on board, but I don’t trust anything they say either. I would suggest to us that we have to begin to do something. We talked about the fact that it was a hope and a prayer and that the public would vote a certain way, if it’s sold the right way Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that with all of the double talk and the lack of credibility that exudes from many of our Council Meetings, that we would not be able to sell anything. And the public would not vote for anything because they would not be sure which person, which Council, which whatever they would be speaking to on any given day. I would suggest to us that it would be erroneous, and I accept your apology. That day, we knew what was on the table. Our citizens and our constituents charge us with the responsibility of going home, not coming to the meeting to floss, not coming to the meeting to wax eloquent, but coming to the meeting having read, having been prepared and then casting the vote that we think is the best vote for our constituency in our districts. To do less than that may have been irresponsible on your part, but I would suggest that to come back at this late date and to play games with people’s emotions is unfair. Yes, the projections were off and yes we’ve got to do something. The bottom line is that we have a responsibility as a Council when that Administration comes up short, and whenever they make whatever kind of mistakes that we want to criticize or characterize them as, it’s still our responsibility to come up with the ideas to help fill the gap. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to at this point if it’s possible- - - I think that what we have to do is move forward with this and I think that where there are no ideas, that there ought not be any chastising and criticizing at this point. Nobody on this Council has unduly criticized the Chairman for mis-voting or not voting correct or whatever the case may be. And I think that this would have been best handled by simply coming back voting. Because none of with all of it’s eloquence, none of the content of that communication meant an iota worth of difference to anybody who already knows how they’re going to vote. What I would suggest is that we ought to, in my opinion, credibility is an issue and you said to me that we weren’t going to have to go through all of this. I wish we would not have. But since we did, I just think we’ve opened a Pandora’s Box and I think knowingly that nothing’s going to change. I think a part of leadership we have to know is 1) we need to bring ideas, we need to bring creativity, we need to bring solutions. Anybody can bring excuses, anybody can bring criticism and anybody can point fingers. Because it doesn’t take any deep intellect to be able to do that. The people have elected us to make a difference and to make progress for the City. I would suggest to us that those are the things that we ought to do, and we ought to do that by bringing ideas first of all and secondly, when we bring ideas, leadership suggest that I ought to be able to get four votes for my idea. If I cannot, it suggest something about my idea perhaps, and my ability to marshal the support necessary to forward and to advocate those things that I am a proponent of. Less than that, and bellyaching, I think does nothing to help the credibility of the Council, nor ultimately to advance the agenda that the people elected us to advance. With all due respect Mr. Chairman, I’m disappointed in that and with that I’d like to call for the question.

Councilman Gibson: The question’s been called. Do I have a second? I don’t have a second on that, Mr. Green.

Mr. Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Along with what Mr. Jackson has said, when you called me and asked me about your vote, if I would vote with you to put this back on the agenda that you simply made the wrong vote. I said to you that I would and that’s why I voted to have it introduced so that you would have the opportunity to correct your vote and that was all this was supposed to been for. It was not supposed to have been a dissertation of who, or how the Administration misled. It was not to give the opportunity to the media to say that we the Council was doing this, because that was not what it was. And when you brought it to me, the first thought came to my mind was the slogan that the Marines put on television. The few, the proud, the Marine. And I understand that in being Chairman, I’ve been there. It takes a certain person, a certain kind of person to be able to carry on all of this stuff and to vote right. So, I understood that you could have made a mistake in not voting right. So I was assisting you in voting not to cause a big commotion in the community and now we have community folk who are upset that we are doing this and we are doing this wrong. And I just think that’s bad. Because I could go through a whole dissertation of your comments, Mr. Chair, January 28, 2003, of some things that you said about infrastructure, how important it was that we needed infrastructure there, the money, and all of your whole comments. And of course, you had a whole stack of comments, how important it is, how bad we needed the money. At that time, you supported the Administration in saying how wonderful it was for them to be able to foresee this and foresee that, and they needed to do this and you were with them, and you were on board, and how important it was for this Infrastructure Committee. Because doing this Committee, I appointed it when I was Chair. And I think it’s unfair for you to political-cize this council on something that really doesn’t mean a hill of beans because 1) you know from the start that you were not going to have the votes to repeal. So therefore, it was just a matter of cosmetics to help you as a friend. And I think that you’ve violated that trust. You talked about folk violating the trust. You violated my trust because you told me nothing about you wanted to get the record straight and you wanted to make sure that you got another shot at the Mayor or got another shot at us for voting for it in the first place. And I think that’s wrong. And not only that, but not only should you apologize to your constituents, but I think you ought to apologize to this Council and to the Administration. Because that’s not what you told me this was about. And if I’m lying, you can tell me to my face. Thank you Mr .Chairman.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, I think while we’re doing all the finger pointing, we’re missing the real issue. And the real issue is that we want to have absolutely the best water and sewer system that we can for the citizens of Shreveport. Not just for District B, but for all of the citizens, it takes a certain amount of money to maintain that system and provide continual upgrade. Somebody made a comment to me at lunch today, that part of our problem is we’re paying for the sins of the past. And there’s no question that we are. And it’s not this Administration, but we can go way back. We haven’t spent the money on the infrastructure that we should. If you look at my district, Councilman Lester’s district, a little of Councilman Carmody’s district, we have the oldest infrastructure in Shreveport. Our’s is crumbling. Just Friday, I believe it was, Councilman Carmody and I were notified of a sewer problem. Nobody likes that in their neighborhood. It’s not something you want to happen. And it’s something that we don’t want to happen, but when it happens, we want to fix it. Mike, we call you and your folks are great about responding. But it takes money to have what we want to have. Water and Sewer is an enterprise fund. It pays it’s own way. We’re paying for the improvements, we’re paying for the water that we get, we’re paying for the sewer system that gets rid of that water after you’ve used it. And I think my constituents know that my commitment if for them to have the very best that we can provide at the lowest possible price. I don’t think a bond issue is the answer for this. I think it would impact our bonding capacity later. I favor revenue bonds and take the money that we pay for our water and sewer and pay for the improvements. It’s as simple as that. So I want my constituents and all of the citizens of Shreveport to know that I’m committed to providing them the best water and sewer system we can at the lowest possible price. However, this is necessary and I’m going to vote the same way I voted before. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. We have a tough job and in doing this job, there are times when we have to do things that our constituents may not like, but we are elected to do what we believe is right. And as long as at the end of the day, we can look ourselves in the face and know that we did the right thing, then that’s what it’s all about. Nobody likes a rate increase. No one likes to pay more. I mean if you would give the citizens or anybody else the choice, they would say ‘don’t raise my rates, please don’t make me pay anymore’. But the fact of the matter is over a period of time, we have neglected our infrastructure system. As Councilman Walford said, ours is a situation based on revenue, it’s an enterprise fund. So the people that use the service have to pay. That’s everybody. Regardless of whether you live in MLK, or Southern Trace or wherever, everyone is going to have to pay a little bit more to improve the system. And that’s not something that we like to do. But as elected leaders for the City of Shreveport, we have to do the tough job. There are many times, that we have done things that I know to be right in my heart of hearts. That I’ve had to listen to my constituents be upset about in the short term, and months later, they came back to me and said, ‘you know what? We think you were right’. If your job or if your thought of doing this job, this awesome responsibility is always (unclear) the favor of the public, then that’s not the right thing to do because this job requires you to make tough decisions that are going to be unpopular. And I look at, and I don’t even know this lady. But I think one of the City Councilmen in Bossier, Faye Rawls, she was turned out of office because she believed that they needed that arena where it was in Bossier. And by and large part the people in the district said no, no, no, no. And they ran her out of office. And now, some of those same people that ran that lady out of office are bragging about what a great facility that they have. Many times you have to have the perseverance of, in this position, to be wrong, to be the bad guy in the short term, so long as you are committed to doing the right thing in the long term. No one likes an increase, but if we’re going to have a water system that the City of Shreveport needs, that’s a quality one, it’s going to have to cost. We made the tough decision, lets live with it. If we decided that ‘hey I did not vote correctly’, then say that and lets move on. But for us - - - it’s like the Republicans beat John Kerry over the head, “I voted for the $87,000,000 before I voted against it”. And we laughed and said this person was a “flip flop”. You know part of this job, part of this responsibility is being prepared and you know in a former life, you know they used to tell me poor preplanning predicates poor performance and poor performance promotes pain. For what it’s worth. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m not going to be very long about this. I’m going to make it brief, but I do want to apologize for casting the wrong vote. I’m not going to make a big deal about that. I’m embarrassed about it, but I admit it. I made a wrong vote. In the past, I had voted against the water rate, the accelerated water rate increases and I hold firm to my position. You know on the Council, we’re called on to be experts in a lot of different things. And I don’t know of anybody up here that’s an expert on municipal water systems. You know it would be great and certainly there are some brilliant minds up here, that could have some ideas. In fact, I had talked to Mike Strong this morning and requested a meeting with next week about some ideas that I have. But Councilman Walford, you’re right. A few minutes ago in what you said, the problem is that we need to address the future of this. It’s not going to be solved here today, and this rate increase is fixin to pass. But my concern is where does it end. More money is not always the answer. I’m a conservative, yet however, I’m not against all new property tax increases or I’m not against all new rate increases. The point is that the people we rely on as experts have got to convince me that there is absolutely no other way to do this. It has to be a last resort for me to vote for a tax increase, just like the juvenile justice tax. I was pushing for that. I voted for it. I was convinced that there was no other way to do it. And I’ve not been convinced yet that this is the only way, just to keep raising the water rates. I understand that we have needs, infrastructure needs. We’re under a mandate from the federal government to bring up our water treatment systems to code, but that’s going to be my position now, that I will be against this increase. And I look forward to talking more about this. Not here on the record, but in private with Mr Strong and others, perhaps the Infrastructure Committee as well. Councilman Jackson, I’ll close with this, but you said something that reverberated in my mind just a few days ago up here, we were up here discussing some things. And when you said that in regard to the civic appropriations cuts that were made, you said that some of those people went home and were disappointed and you said ‘they got over it’, you know. They just went back to the drawing board and said, ‘well, we didn’t get that grant from the city, we didn’t meet out budget. So, we’re going to have to go back and make some adjustments’. Perhaps this could be the case in the future. You know if the water rate increases (unclear). So, I don’t have the solution right here today, I do have some ideas that I’m going to share next week with Mr. Strong. And so with that I’m finished and I call for the question. Okay, I’ll defer to Councilman Carmody. I’ll withdraw my request to call for the question.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Councilman Hogan. Could I ask Mike Strong to come forward? Mr. Strong, some months ago, we sat in on a meeting to talk about the necessity to increase the water rate to cover the shortfall. Part of that discussion pertain to the fact that Department of Water and Sewerage had utilized the figures that were provided by our Finance Department, which apparently there were some inaccuracy or mis-reading. I bring that to the attention of Council again, and to the public, because I feel like that it’s imperative that whoever the Department Head is and especially in the Water and Sewer Department, because the enterprise fund operates on good sound information as far as the revenues that you have, the reserves that you have starting off with and what monies are available to facilitate the work to address deferred maintenance with the infrastructure. I hate to have to call you up here Mike to just listen to me say that. But I say that because my vote of No was not in denial of the fact that this is an enterprise fund gentlemen, that each user of our water and sewer system has to pay in order to utilize the system. There’s nobody else that’s going to fix it. Regardless of the circumstances that we found ourselves in, the prior Administrations overlooking the problem - - - out of sight, out of mind. That’s part of it and a big part of it. The other part of it is though is that the Department of Operational Services as well as the Department of Water and Sewerage has to have accurate information. On the record, I am going to ask of the Administration as well as Mr. Strong to look at the possibility of outsourcing the accounting for the Department of Water and Sewerage so that we can have an independent and bonded accounting firm provide this service to the community, so that each time the Council is asked to support an increase, that we can go back and look at the information. The example of finger pointing was very appropriate. There are a lot of people pointing fingers, the reality is whose going to pull this cart out of the ditch. It is us. Or we could be part of the problem too and just continue to let it go. But Mr. Strong, I appreciate you coming forward, I don’t need any response from you, but on the record, I do think that, that is a suggestion that I think the public would support. So that you as well as future directors of Department of Water and Sewerage have the benefit of the expertise with an enterprise fund to know that the numbers that they are looking at are accurate. And therefore the public is assured of what our available funds are at the beginning of the year, what the revenue is when the year end and what monies are available to be spent to address the needed repairs to the water and sewer system. I appreciate you taking the time to walk up here sir and I will let you go back to your seat. And I’m sorry, that it seems that I have some questions for you, but my vote as of No, and being the long descending vote was not the fac that I don’t want to see us repair our water and sewer system, but I do think that it was in an attempt to bring this issue to the forefront for the community so that we can address it. Why should we address it? Because it’s a necessity. It’s not going to be cheap to fix this and it’s not gonna be fixed by just saying ‘well okay, this Council passed an accelerated water increase, so now we can forget about it’, and then when we’re 65 years old, maybe look at another rate increase. That’s not going to happen. Every year, the cost of any commodity goes up. The associated cost to deliver that product is gonna go up. Guess what? We’re in the product delivery business that just happens to be water. So, gentlemen, I will turn back over the floor to the Chairman, but again, my No vote is not to say that I don’t support the fact that we need to fix the system, my No vote is I support the rationale behind getting proper accounting and certified accounting so that we know actually what our numbers are at the beginning of the year and what they are at the end of the year. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Carmody and I agree with you on the fact that we have to answer to our constituency and a lot of my constituents which drove this particular item to occur was driven in the fact that they didn’t know when those rate increases occurred back in 2002 and they were definitely going to be in for a big shock on this other item and one thing led to another. And again, after the word political expedience has been thrown at me on several occasions. I don’t know of any politicians that do things politically expedient starting by apologizing to their constituents for making a mistake on the vote and I publically apologize for that. But the fact is, getting lost in the shuffle, is the users of that water system and the taxpayers in the City of Shreveport of which they pay taxes. Extremely high taxes for infrastructure improvements and things of that nature of which I too, Councilman Carmody, believe that this will elevate the discussion to a level that will not just be amongst the seven of us and the Administration, but the public at large of which are the bosses of each one our districts. Councilman Jackson, you have a comment?

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Strong, since you’re here- - - . Well, let me first be on record as saying I can appreciate what I think the spirit of what Councilman Carmody is suggesting, however I don’t have full faith and confidence in any firm, just because they happen to be a CPA firm. You know like the Arthur Andersens of the world and other people who are big name firms. So, I don’t invest all of my hope in that and from a positive perspective we have to be sure that we know what we ask them for and articulate that clearly so that they can, whether it’s outsourcing or not, whether they can get that done. I want to ask Mr. Strong or the Administration maybe for the sake of homework, so that when we get back together, because I think to just have discussion, excuse me and have no idea (unclear) answer all of our peoples concern. 1) I’d like to find out Mr. Mayor, and to the Administration, what it would take to dedicate 30% of our Riverfront Development, our Riverfront Fund money annually toward infrastructure. If it means dropping all civic appropriations from that, what does mean to take 30% of the Riverfront fund and commit it, as much of it is already obligated and I think if we reduce all civic appropriations. Because I know that’s a tough thing to even have a discussion about, but I think at some point, we’re going to have to depend on the altruistic and goodwill of communities of faith and institutions of faith and a philanthropic community to do what they have historically done. We cannot forget that by charter, what we are responsible for doing is water, sewerage, streets, drainage, police and fire. That’s what we, by charter, are responsible to do. Everything else would be, when we get the opportunity to do is ancillary and I think beneficial to the citizens if you will. Also, Mr. Mayor if we would look at the money that we currently have - - -, we keep hearing conversations about risk management. If in fact the balance of our risk management fund is above $10,000,000 or whatever the case may be, reducing or eliminating all of our contributions from water and sewer, from all these other resources, to allow them to keep that money in their budget. It may not be a lot of money, but to keep that money in their budget as well. Next also am concerned about what we could do, because the people who are mostly - - - just had a conversation with a 78 year old citizen today, people who are most (unclear) and who are hurt the most whether we talk about it or not, people who have less income earning potential and not more. And I’m going to credit this to a friend who said this, that the difference between a third world country and Shreveport or the United States is our infrastructure. The reason so many people died after the tsunami, as many as died during it, is because of disease infestation that comes when there is not a sewer system whenever the disease that infests the water is able to come back into our streets. That’s important. That’s not a luxury tax we’re talking about. This is a necessity. And so, we have to keep our focus on those things that is a necessity. It means cutting back on some of the things that we’ve done in putting our attention on this. My question also with regard to legal. I think one of the best models is that of a property tax where there is in fact an age and income means test if you will for people who are 65 and older, who live in this community. Whether or not we can cap what they are currently paying now, and how would it affect our revenue. Not that they would avoid paying water, they would still pay for water, but they would be exempt from all increases that may happen in the future, because they are 65 years old and perhaps they make $30,000 or less. Something like that. But we can come up with an age and income means testing our formula that would allow them to escape much of the damage that happens financially to all of us who cry about it. Because our water bill went from $10 to $17. So, I think there is something that can be done. I wonder if there is something that we can look at. Because if we’re really concerned about our citizens, not only is the quality of our service supporting, we also have to take into consideration the ability of our citizenry, particularly our elderly citizens to pay. These increases impact them more than it does perhaps those who have earning potentials, who are younger, those who are much more prosperous if you will. So I would ask this Administration, if you could as a matter of homework to look at those ideas and see if there is anyway. Because what those things do is cause us not to increase rates, but it does put focus on what the problem is. Being able to spend that Riverfront money on infrastructure keeps us from having to ask you, you, and you for your money. And this allows us I think to be responsible and to do brick and mortar type work with the money from RiverFront fund which I think it should have been the case from the very beginning. So, if there is a way to look at those things and see what we could produce from that. Because I think that we also have two more rate increases in the future. They’re both 4% rate increases that are projected. I’d like to be able to come back after we’ve voted on this sometime in the future with another ordinance that takes those off the books if we can find out whether or not we’re able to pay through some other means.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman and I’m going to call for the question. And I’ve been struggling where to even go here, but this is what I don’t understand. First of all, let me applaud Councilman Jackson for coming up with an idea. His idea may work, it may not work. But he’s got an idea. What I don’t understand is how someone can sit on the Council for six years. Vote for the rate acceleration on the prior Council, vote for an acceleration or deal with an acceleration having the benefit of four years of a prior situation and two years now, and even today has proposed no solutions whatsoever. People are tired of that guys. People are tired of that. Anybody can sit here and criticize. The Mayor says left, I’ll say right. The Mayor says right, I’ll say left. The Mayor says up, I’ll say down. Why? Because. People don’t elect us to spot issues. It doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to spot issues. I don’t understand how someone can sit on the Council for six years and not propose a solution for a problem that happens year, after year, after year, after year. What are you doing? What are you doing that you would sit there and see a problem continue to mount year after year, after year. And have the benefit of the wisdom bought or otherwise from four years and still even today have offered not a single solution. All you do is point where they’re wrong. I want to publicly commend Councilman Jackson for doing something that the citizens asked us to do. As a legislator, you express yourself by writing ordinances, resolutions and other legislation. Not to come up here and use our time to criticize the Mayor or criticize each other or throw rocks. That is juvenile. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Lester. Again, I’ll remind there was a recommendation to go to a General Obligation Bond. This was not something that was not thought out. Mr. Mayor, you have a comment?

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, one thing that I can assure you of is that I’m not going to flip flop, I do my homework. When we set a proposal before this Council, we have a plan in place. We have projections in place. You asked for worst case scenario, not best case scenario. Let me give you worst case scenario in the water and sewer department. EPA mandates, EPA fines, collapsing water mains, weakened sewer systems, overflowing plants, continued fines as in Baton Rouge, LA that is fined year in, year out. They’re money is not going to fix infrastructure. It’s going to pay the EPA. Is that what you suggest? I would think not, and I would hope not. You talk about mismanagement. If we’ve mismanaged the Convention Center into saving $10,000,000, then I’ll take the blame. If we have managed to spend $5,000,000 on the Riverfront entertainment district and leveraged the $20,000,000 project with something to sell, then I’ll take the blame for hiring Elkington at the time. The good news is the Entertainment District is filling up. The good news is down the road, the City of Shreveport will be better for it. It’s easy to do nothing. No political harm. That’s what’s happened in the past. It’s politics of the past is exactly what you’re suggesting today is that we do nothing. Out of sight, out of mind. $200,000,000 problem, don’t do anything, don’t worry about it. Let somebody else figure it out. Councilman Carmody hit the nail on the head. Nobody’s gonna fix this problem but us. We the citizens of Shreveport. Whether you’re a City Councilman or the Mayor, you’re a citizen of Shreveport, we all pay water bills and we’re the ones that are going to have to fix it. I’m not a believer that standing up for what’s right, having the courage to address problems, tackle issues is political suicide. Someone on this Council must think that, because they addressed the problems, they want better streets, better golf courses, better infrastructure, create committees to provide for better infrastructure and no way to pay for any of it. We all have to work together to come up with solutions on how we’re going to fund the needs of this community. We’ve done it, day and day out. It would be politically expedient for this Administration and this Council to practice politics of the past and do nothing. Face the potential fines, let the sewers collapse, let the water be contaminated. That’s not what I think any of us were elected to do. We can talk till we’re all blue in the face. It’s time to stop talking. When I ran for Mayor the first time, I ran on lets’ not study, study, study, study everything to death. We can study everything. We studied the Convention Center to death. We studied the Convention Center Hotel to death. We got two experts study it and some still say that’s not good enough, lets let somebody else study it now. If we’re going to progress and we’re not going to continue to be a town and we want to be a city, let’s stop talking. Is prudent information necessary? Absolutely. Gather it, decipher it, decide. It’s really pretty simple. Again, I don’t think political courage means political suicide if you’re doing the right thing. You can talk about GO Bonds versus Revenue Bonds, but when you’re in an instance when you have a self generating entity such as the water and sewer department that should pay for itself, an enterprise fund, if you don’t like the way that it’s setup as an enterprise fund, dismantle it. I hadn’t heard that solution either, but dismantle it, then go ask for GO Bonds. I think the Chairman understands. Maybe he doesn’t understand, but I know he’s asked in the Council Meetings before, what’s our bond capacity? What is our bond capacity? Is the hotel gonna hurt our bond capacity? The hotel has nothing do with our bond capacity. Because the hotel is being sold on revenue bonds. The water system is funded through revenue bonds, it does not hurt our GOB bonding capacity. If you want to switch from Revenue bonds to GOB bonds, then what you do Councilman, then you rob from streets, you rob from drainage, you rob from police, you rob from employees, you rob from fire, you rob from all the essential services that Councilman Jackson eloquently pointed out, that is your responsibility. And if you think we can take $100,000,000 bond capacity and attack a $200,000,000 infrastructure problem in water and sewer, that’s what I call bad management. We need revenue. We’ve come with solutions to address every problem we have. Not to completely fix every problem we have, that’s way too monumental for this Administration or this Council to do and I don’t think that’ll happen. Again, the easy thing to do is as you suggest today in this piece of legislation. Nothing. Nobody’s mad at you because your water rates don’t go up. Who knows? Maybe the sewer line won’t brake in your district. Probably won’t, it’s newer than it is in Councilman Lester’s district or it is in Councilman Walford’s district. Perhaps you win. I think the bottom line, got you exactly what you wanted today. Two hours of discussion and probably a clip on the evening news. But the reality is we have a problem in the water and sewer department. Not one Councilman has the courage to stand up today and say that we don’t. Or that you hadn’t had the information or that you hadn’t been supplied with the opportunity to understand what your vote should be. Whether you vote yes or no, that doesn’t matter. But to again, sit back introduce legislation to do nothing, I don’t believe is what any of us got elected to do. I would encourage the Council to do as the Council did two weeks ago. Put the rate increase in place. The numbers are what the numbers are. Will there be rate increases in the future? Absolutely. And Councilman Carmody alluded to that. Has the cost of building gone up over the past decade or over the past two years? Do we stop building buildings because the price of steel has gone up? Is that scenario any different than the cost of the delivery of goods, water and toilets flushing. Because if the price goes up, we have to adjust. Its an enterprise fund, it should stand on it’s own, it will stand on it’s own, but not without revenue increases. We can charge zero. If you want to be a political hero, let’s go to zero. And not fix anything else we have in the City and see how long anyone’s a political hero. Again, I would encourage those of you that feel the urge to change your vote to look at what you’re doing to the future of the City, the infrastructure. If you can stand or sit and say, I don’t think we need to do anything, vote No today. Vote No, but I’m confident the majority of this Council comes down here for the same reason and it’s the betterment of this community. That includes the infrastructure, that includes the knowledge and the understanding that you pay for what you get. Nothing’s free. The only people that are going to fix the problem as Councilman Carmody said are us. Have a little political courage and lets do what we have to do and I can assure you it won’t result in political suicide. The citizens of this city are much too intelligent to let anything other than reality stand in the way. They understand you get what you pay for.

Councilman Gibson: I appreciate your comments. Again, I think we’ve lost perspective in the fact that the constituents of mine and I know the constituents of my colleagues pay a lot of taxes and if what you’ve described and outlined, which we’ve heard from Mike Strong and the Infrastructure Committee, that it’s that severe and I guess the question I have is why did we put proposals out for hotels and convention centers, and entertainment districts and things of that nature. That’s where the constituents are saying we’re paying massive amounts of taxes for basic services Mayor, like streets and drainage, and police and fire and things of that nature and then after they pay their taxes, we come back and we say ‘oops, by the way, we’re going to do this, and this, and this, which are water rates and as a City Councilman for eight years, you had to take those phone calls. And right now, you know what? In my district, they’re fed up. They’re completely fed up. And I don’t know about the rest of the districts, but they’re fed up with the high taxes and the high fees, and we can talk about what we need to do, but the fact is your Administration put us in a bind with high debt service and other commitments that we can’t look toward in terms of sales tax and hotel/motel tax and everything else that’s leveraged to the hilt. So, it is a serious issue. It’s gonna take a collective effort. But you laid out what the alternative are for doing nothing. This sent something back in a direction where we can put a general obligation bond out to make the difference up.

Mayor Hightower: Yeah, I’d just like to respond briefly, and I don’t want to get into a tit for tat dialogue with you. But,

Councilman Gibson: I’d love it.

Mayor Hightower: There’s no question that revenue has been a problem to do the things that most of us feel like we do to move this City forward, whether that be to renovate a stadium, whether that be to create a new industry, or new industry called tourism and build a convention center, a hotel that makes the convention center succeed. All of those things that we’ve proposed that have taken place are items that generated from one of two things. Either to generate revenue or quality of life issues the citizens want. You control the budget Mr. Chairman. We merely suggest solutions, suggest directions and fortunately I think for this City, the majority of the City Council has seen the need to move us from a town to a city. Has seen the need to stop studying and start doing. Do we have more debt today than we had ten years ago? We absolutely do. Did we have problems to address? We absolutely did. And we’re addressing them. Will we finish? Again, I don’t know. I don’t suspect we will. But there’s never a better time, never a better time Mr. Chairman to invest your money, than when interest rates are low. We’ve taken full advantage of the economic times that we find ourselves in, to catch up. And I’ll stand 100% behind what we’ve done and I believe in the end look back to the story that Councilman Lester told a moment ago about CenturyTel, time will tel.

Councilman Lester: I call for the vote.

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

Councilman Gibson: We have a motion and a second to approve this utility rate repeal. Mr. Thompson, a Yes vote to repeal, a No vote would not repeal, correct?

Mr. Thompson: A Yes vote repeals the rate increase for 2005 and a No vote leaves the increase in affect.

Motion to approve the Ordinance No. 204 of 2004 fails by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Green, and Jackson. 5. Ayes: Councilmen Gibson, and Hogan. 2. None.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, items 205 through 211

Councilman Green: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a motion to suspend the rules to deal with item 243. These citizens have been for - - -

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Lester to suspend the rules to consider Ordinance No. 243. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

20. Ordinance No. 243 of 2005: ZONING - C-81-04: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by Rezoning property located on the southeast corner of Jordan and Highland, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from SP-1-E, Highland Urban Conservation/Extended Use District (Limited to Hospital, Administrative Offices and Parking Lot) to SPI-1-E, (Limited “to Hospital Administrative Offices and Parking lot, and to include Substance Abuse Counseling and Treatment Facility.” only), and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford)

Having passed first reading on December 27, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, I’m hard pressed to find a negative in this, I think it promises to be very good. I understand some concerns that were voiced by Mr. Arceneaux, and I have to say having been in that area, it’s not this facility that would cause the problem, it’s some of the rental properties, and that’s being addressed by SPD. I don’t know if the Chief is here, but I can tell you I did a ‘knock and talk’ with SPD officers not long ago in that neighborhood on Egan and Stoner and they’re making an effort to end the problems that were part of what Mr. Arceneaux addressed. So, to make it very brief, I think this is going to be an asset to the community and not a detriment.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I too agree with what Councilman Walford says. I had to leave the Chamber really briefly, or else we’d probably still be here. But I caught some of the comments that Mr. Arceneaux made in terms of relating a treatment facility for people who are trying to change their lives and relating that to alcohol and liquor stores on every corner Allendale. There is no (unclear) you cannot equate the two. A treatment facility takes people who have had pain in their life and tries to build them up. Liquor stores masquerade as convenience stores that’s tearing people down and I might add, that many of those deals were done while Councilman Arceneaux was on the Council. And for him to come up here and say ‘well we don’t want that to happen like what happened in Allendale’, he sat on this Council while Allendale went down and he didn’t step to the plate and say ‘let’s change, let’s do some things differently in Allendale’, he voted to help Allendale go down and for him to come up here and to say that a treatment facility that’s helping people is tantamount to a liquor store, who is he? He has a hell of a nerve, excuse my language, a hell of a nerve. Allendale is not in the problem- - -

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Lester, we’re talking about - - - .

Councilman Lester: I’m relating it, give me a minute. The situation in Allendale in terms of revitalization did not, Allendale did not go in decline because of treatment facilities. Highland is not a bad place because of treatment facilities. As a matter of fact, I could call Mr. Kirkland up here, I’m not going to do it, but there are several treatment facilities in Highland, right now, today. The difference is the person who is running the treatment facility looks like this and the other people look like that. And I’ll leave that for what it is. It’s - - - the Mayor said something about politics of the past. That old, I have to control, I have to keep my people in line, let’s keep this place a town, that is over with. You have a person that’s come from out of town, that has made a significant investment in a piece of property that was zoned for the purpose of having a hospital. He has come from California and put $100,000 into this building so far and has pledged to do more. And trying to help people in the All American City to make their lives better and that is tantamount to alcohol that he voted for. No. And I can’t stand for that. You’re right. I’m going to be quite. I just have a problem when people try to insult folks intelligence and they use these arguments and these fear tactics and they hid behind something that is clearly this. They don’t want to say that, but clearly, that’s what that’s all about and it’s time out for all of that. There is one Shreveport, there is not a White Shreveport, and a Black Shreveport. There is one Shreveport. I’m glad that the Shreveport that the former Councilman Arceneaux represents isn’t the Shreveport of today and I’m going to pledge that, that Shreveport never exist.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Lester, I don’t know about the this and this, but I appreciate your comments. Councilman Carmody.

Councilman Carmody: Could I ask Mr. Kirkland to come forward, I did want to ask one question real quick. And I’m not sure if all the members were here, but the question was asked about the zoning of the property’s possibilities. Is there any requirement that a hospital have doctors?

Mr. Kirkland: If you’ll look at the record on this case, I can’t answer your question. I don’t know that 1) It would appear to be fraud if one had a hospital and no doctors, but if you’ll look- - -

Councilman Carmody: I just didn’t know if you had a definition for the zoning for a hospital, if it said that, that’s - - -

Mr. Kirkland: I think the Louisiana Department of Health does regulate those type of facilities. These folks have clearly said for the record at our meeting and yours today, they will operate under those regulations. There is a restriction or a condition that says they have to remain licensed by the State or they will lose the right to be a hospital. So, it’s clear that they are aware of what the State regs are and what our local regs are.

Councilman Carmody: Okay, but the short and sweet of it is that if you ask for a zoning for a hospital, there is no requirement that it’s used as a hospital cause you have doctors or anybody that’s medically - - -?

Mr. Kirkland: Mr. Carmody: I can’t think of a one, can you? I mean, where we call it a hospital (unclear)

Councilman Carmody: I just didn’t know if we had some sort of a zoning for a treatment facility that’s not a hospital.

Mr. Kirkland: There are treatment centers that could operate under another set of rules and regs. That’s not what these folks chose to do.

Councilman Carmody: Yes sir.

Mr. Kirkland: They applied for it as a hospital and for a treatment facility.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Pastor Pierce, I want to commend you for what you’ve done and I think you’re doing a great work here. And I plan to vote in favor of this. I just have one comment. As you were addressing the Council, a while ago, that based on what you’re telling me the information I’ve read that you provided, you could qualify for Faith Based Funding from the Federal Government. That could have been something you already looked into, but that’s just a comment, just an observation I have. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

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

Councilman Green: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to suspend the rules to deal with item no. 199 at this time.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Lester to suspend the rules to consider Ordinance No. 199. Motion approved by the following votes: Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7. Nays. None.

16. Ordinance No. 199 of 2005: ZONING C-72-04: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinances by rezoning of property located on the northwest corner of Creswell and Olive Streets, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District, to B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District Limited to “Auto Repair, Filling Station, and Auto Sales” only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Postponed December 27, 2004)(B/Walford)

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion to approve the amendment to 199, if you’ll go to your electronic agenda, it’s on there.

Having passed first reading on November 30, 2004 was read by title and on motion ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford seconded by Councilman Green for adoption.

The Clerk read the following amendment:

Amendment No. 1

By: Councilman Monty Walford

In Section II, add a new stipulation to read as follows:

5. Only the three vehicles allowed for sale may be displayed in front of the business. All other vehicles must be stored in the fenced area behind the business except during business hours when they are being worked on. The screening fence and the entrance to the rear yard must be approved by the staff of the Metropolitan Planning Commission.

Motion by Councilman Walford seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt Amendment No. 1. Approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green, and Jackson. 7. Nays: None.

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

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, if I may discuss. As you heard at the last meeting, there was some neighborhood concern, and I think Mr. Lester had talked to some of the principals in this and he and I talked. I talked to Mr. Cooper who is back there. And I think we’ve come up with a compromise that is addressed in this amendment that will be acceptable to everyone. And basically, it says that only the three vehicles allowed, the vehicles that are for sale will be allowed to be parked in the front of the building. The others will be parked in the back. Mr. Cooper agreed to that. And I think it works well for everyone, so I would appreciate your support on the amendment and the ordinance.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Walford, if I guess in your discussions with these groups, if those three cars become more than that, what happens?

Councilman Walford: Based on what we heard at the last meeting in the way of discussion, my assumption would be that Mr. Kirkland would be hearing about it and Mr. Clarke and they will address it. And remember this approval was for- - - Mr. Kirkland, help me out. One year?

Mr. Kirkland: Yes.

Councilman Gibson: So, you have one year to review it. Thank you Councilman Walford.

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

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

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 199 of 2004: An Ordinance to re-zone the NW corner of Creswell & Olive, from B-2-E, to B-2-E limited to “auto repair, filling station and auto sales only.”

By: Councilman Monty Walford

In Section II, add a new stipulation to read as follows:

5. Only the three vehicles allowed for sale may be displayed in front of the business. All other vehicles must be stored in the fenced area behind the business except during business hours when they are being worked on. The screening fence and the entrance to the rear yard must be approved by the staff of the Metropolitan Planning Commission.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, items 205 through 211 were subject to a public hearing today.

6. Ordinance No. 205 of 2005: ANNEXATION (TAG No 04-02): Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located along the south side of the East Flournoy Lucas Road (LA. Hwy. 523) in portions of Sections 4,5,8, and 9 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

7. Ordinance No. 206 of 2005: ANNEXATION (TAG NO. 04-04): Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located south of the Shirley Francis Road in the NE/4 of Section 5 (T16N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (G/Jackson)

8. Ordinance No. 207 of 2005: ANNEXATION (TAG NO. 03-05): Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located in the southeasterly intersection of the Flournoy Lucas Road with Pines Road in the N/2 of Section 1 (T16-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Hogan)

9. Ordinance No. 208 of 2005: ANNEXATION (TAG NO. 03-01): Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located along the Southern Loop Road in the SE/4 of Section 20 and the NE/4 of Section 29 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

10. Ordinance No. 209 of 2005: ANNEXATION (TAG NO. 03-02): Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a tract of land located along the Ellerbe Road in the SW/4 of Section 5 and in the NW/4 of Section 8 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

11. Ordinance No. 210 of 2005: ANNEXATION (TAG NO. 03-03): Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the Cit of Shreveport - a tract of land located along the East Flournoy Lucas Road (LA. Hwy 523) in Sections 3 and 4 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and a portion of LA. 1 (Youree Drive), and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

12 Ordinance No. 211 of 2005: ANNEXATION (TAG NO. 03-04): Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - A tract of land located in the SW/4 of Section 29 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, for Southern Trace, Phase IV, Section XVII- A/B, Subdivision, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Gibson)

Having passed first reading on December 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Gibson to adopt Ordinance No(s) 205-211 of 2005. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays. None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1

13. Ordinance No. 238 of 2005: An ordinance closing and abandoning the T-Shaped Alleyway bounded by Simms and Finn Streets and west of Clyde E. Fant Memorial Parkway to Airport Drive in the Henderson Iron Subdivision located in the NW 1/4 of Section 25 (T18N-R14W), Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

Having passed first reading on December 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays. None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

14. Ordinance No. 239 of 2005: Amending Section 90-229 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport relative to through streets designated. (A/Lester)

Mr. Thompson: I think that’s to be withdrawn.

Having passed first reading on December 14, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Jackson to be withdrawn. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays. None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

15. Ordinance No. 180 of 2005: ZONING C-69-04: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinances, the City of Shreveport located on the west side of Cross Lake Boulevard 890 feet west of Dilg League, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1D & SPI-5, Urban, One-Family Residence District and Cross Lake Preservation District, to R-1D-E, Urban, One-Family Residence Extend Use District and SPI-5-E District, Limited to “Residential Use, A Marina, Bait Stand, with Boat and Trailer Repairs and the outside storage of boats and trailers” and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Postponed December 27, 2004) (G/Jackson)

Having passed first reading on October 26, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt.

Councilman Carmody: Gentlemen, I have no problem in approving this, but I did note after discussion with our Risk Manager, that we do need to check the contracts that we have with these persons that have the improvements on municipal property. Especially when they constitute underground storage tanks. And the reason being is that unless there is a provision in there that protects the municipality and specifically Cross Lake so that our municipal water supply is protected that the (unclear) be on the owner of the tank, to notify the city of any environmental problem when it originates. I did not see that limit in there, but I solicit the Administration to go back and take a look. And I don’t think that we actually grant a contract. I think that they word it as a permit. But I do think that it’s a prudent thing to put the responsibility on the owner of the improvements to notify the City of any environmental problem which occurs, contamination, because again, this is on City property, this is in very close proximity to our municipal water supply. If not in some instances these gasolines are actually floating in the lake, then it would be the prudent thing to make sure and in that way, our treatment plant is aware and be looking for the problem so that we don’t have a safety issue. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

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

17. Ordinance No. 240 of 2005: ZONING - C-66-04: Amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located southeast of the intersection of East 70^th and Dixie Meadows Drive, from R-A, Residence Agriculture District, to R-3, Urban, Multiple-Family Residence District and B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.(C/Carmody)

Having passed first reading on December 27, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Hogan to adopt.

Councilman Carmody: Gentlemen, if you take a look at the map that’s attached to this particular legislation, you’ll see that District C actually surrounds the village of Dixie Gardens. The number of the residents who reside in Dixie Gardens and again, they are not citizens of the City of Shreveport, although they’re surrounded by it, have contacted me to say they are ver concerned about the traffic impact of the development on this site in such close proximity to the foot of the Jimmy Davis Bridge and 70^th Street. I have advised each of them that I understand their concerns, but then again, it would actually be their Parish Commissioner who is their elected representative to look into this matter. I do not think that it’s a bad thing. As I say, I think this is gonna be a good development. The developers are reputable people, been here a long time, and I think they’re going to do a quality product. But I would reiterate and make sure that its on the record that there is concern by the existing residential development known as the village of Dixie Gardens, and those persons who own property there, that this project or development, excuse me, is going to have a tremendous impact on the traffic in that area, and if any of you have not tried to negotiate 70^th Street near the Jimmy Davis Bridge at rush hour (unclear), we need a second twin span to the Jimmy Davis Bridge so bad in that area, it’s not funny. But I support the development, but I do think that the City and the State as well as all the elected representatives from that area of Shreveport and the Parish need to be aware of, we’re continuing to put more traffic, concentrated in an area where it’s already very congested it is a dangerous place to try to get through. And we need to do something in concert to address that problem. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Carmody, are you recommending we support this?

Councilman Carmody: I would say so.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Kirkland, along the lines of what Councilman Carmody said, what kind of accommodations did the MPC place on the developer to deal with those situations?

Mr. Kirkland: That issue was studied at some length by the MPC staff, plus the MPC Board. The applicant was completely cooperative in that effort. We had extensive discussions with the State of Louisiana, and actually what we find is that, and I’m not trying to throw a rock across the river, but I will. But most of the problems are on the other side of the river. And that frankly, we were taking some steps, and the applicant agreed that at great expense, they will make some improvements that will significantly improve some of that to the extent that they can. They certainly (unclear), but the bottom line is we were satisfied and also we’re trying to accommodate and still efforts are underway to accommodate the Dixie Garden residents on the closure (unclear) that, that will happen that this may be resolved, but that was really the major issue. Along with some aesthetic considerations that the MPC required the developer to do. They agreed to do that as well.

Councilman Gibson: Thank you Councilman Lester, thank you Mr. Kirkland. Throw just a soft rock Charles.

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

18. Ordinance No. 241 of 2005: ZONING - C-77-04: Amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the east side of Audrey & Peach between Freddie & Willie Mays, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1D, Urban One-Family Residence District, to R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

Having passed first reading on December 27, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Jackson to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Nays. None. Absent: Councilman Green. 1.

19. Ordinance No. 242 of 2005: ZONING - C-78-04: Amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the south side of East Stoner at its intersection with the Clyde Fant Parkway, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-3, Urban Business District, to R-1H (PUD), Urban, One-Family Residence District (Planned Unit Development); B-3 Community Business District to R-3, Urban Multiple-Family Residence District; and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford)

Having passed first reading on December 27, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt.

Councilman Walford: I would just say this is quite a development Mr. Chairman. I think it’s something we can be pleased with.

Councilman Gibson: Outstanding.

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

21. Ordinance No. 244 of 2005: ZONING - C-82-04: Amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport, zoning ordinance by rezoning property located on the west side of Youree Drive 50 feet south of Archer, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from SPI-3-E, Commercial Corridor Overlay/Extended use (B-1 Buffer Business) District, to SPI-3-E, Commercial Corridor Overlay/Extended use (B-1, Buffer Business District, Limited to “A Loan Company, and to include a Gift and Antique Shop,” ONLY and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/Carmody)

Having passed first reading on December 27, 2004 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Jackson to adopt.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, again Mr. Kirkland, if I could ask you to come forward? It does say the applicants requesting the zoning to permit a gift and antique store at the location, but the mention of a loan shop triggered- - - are we looking at a pawn shop type development?

Mr. Kirkland: No, pawn shop would have to be specifically identified as such. But a loan company could be anywhere from a finance company that loans money to a payday loan operation.

Councilman Carmody: Certainly, I just didn’t know. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

Mr. Kirkland: Right.

Councilman Carmody: And not to throw dispersions on what their concept is, I just wanted to make sure that we were clear on what was going on.

Mr. Kirkland: A loan company could have operated even without them identifying - - -

Councilman Carmody: That’s what I would have thought.

Mr. Kirkland: The antique store is what drove the application.

Councilman Carmody: Very good. Thank you sir.

Mr. Kirkland: I knew that was going to trigger a question.

Councilman Lester: Well, I was going to ask, are they, excuse me, I didn’t realize they did payday loan companies on that side of town.

Councilman Carmody: You need to travel District C. We’ve got it all. We even got liquor stores.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman Lester, you taught me long time ago lets not label anything. Anything’s possible.

Councilman Lester: No, I didn’t label, I was impressed that we do payday loans in Broadmoor. I’m finished.

Councilman Carmody: Well, you asserted.

Councilman Lester: I’m not making the assertion. I’m commending the fact that we are consistent which is my issue. If we’re going to do it on this side, let’s do it on that side.

Councilman Gibson: Councilman we got your point.

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

The adopted ordinances and amendments follows:

ORDINANCE NO. 201 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH A NO PARKING ANYTIME ZONE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE 2400 BLOCK OF LESLIE STREET AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: COUNCILMAN THERON J. JACKSON

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

legal and regular session convened that it shall hereafter be unlawful for anyone to park any vehicle at any time of the day or night on either side of the 2400 block of Leslie Street.

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

the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or

applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or

applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

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

ORDINANCE NO. 202 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH A NO THROUGH TRUCK ROUTE ON IDEMA STREET BETWEEN LINWOOD AVENUE AND MT. ZION ROAD AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: COUNCILMAN GIBSON

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

legal and regular session convened that Idema Street between Linwood Avenue and Mt. Zion Road is hereby created and established as a No Through Truck Route and it shall be unlawful for trucks exceeding fifteen thousand (15,000) pounds gross vehicle weight to use any portion of Idema Street between Linwood Avenue and Mt. Zion Road except for local pickup and delivery.

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

applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or

applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts

thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 203 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 42-216 OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO LICENSE PERMITS AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS 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 42-216 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of

Shreveport is hereby amended to add paragraph (b) and now reads as follows:

Section42:216: Pawnbroker’s record of transaction

***

“(b) Effective January 1, 2005, all daily records shall be filed electronically

to a law enforcement web site designated as an agent of the police department

for the sole purpose of collecting such records, or in such other form as may be

permitted by the Chief of Police.”

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. 205 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT - A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EAST FLOURNOY LUCAS ROAD (LA. HWY. 523) IN PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 4, 5, 8, AND 9 (T16N-R13W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.TAG NO. 04-02

WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statues of 1950 provides for annexation by petition; and

WHEREAS, petitions were signed by more than the required percentage in property value of the area described below has been filed with the City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, the following described property, to-wit:

Begin at the point of intersection of the south right-of-way line of the 50 foot-wide East Flournoy Lucas Road ( La. Hwy. 523) with the centerline of the old Sand Beach Bayou Canal in the SW/4 of Section 4 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish , La., and being the northeast corner of the AEP/SWEPCO 2.68 acre substation tract as described in Book 1247, Pages 751-770, and Book 1454, Page 54, of the Records (Note: Said point of beginning in the centerline of the bayou with the south line of the road is further described as being located 3156.50 feet west and 25.00 feet south of the accepted northeast corner of Lot 16 of the Daniels Lands Subdivision as per Book “S”, Page 884, of the Map records of Caddo Parish in the S/2 of Section 4 (T16N-R13W)); run thence, from said point of beginning, along the centerline of old Sand Beach Bayou Canal across the East Flournoy Lucas Road to a point on the north right-of-way line thereof; run thence north 89_17' 54" west along the north line of the 50 foot-wide East Flournoy Lucas Road a distance of 1398.01 feet, more or less, as per the recorded records, to the intersection with the east line of a 200.390 acre tract of land first described in May of 1979 and designated as Tract No. 2 in Book 1727, Page 77, of the Conveyance Records and being a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 213 of 1993 ; run thence south along the City limits line a distance of 50.00 feet, more or less, across the East Flournoy Lucas Road to a point on the south right-of-way line thereof; run thence in a westerly and southwesterly direction along the said south right-of-

way line of the 50 foot-wide East Flournoy Lucas Road as dedicated in Book 94, Pages 459 and 504, and in Book 192, Pages 660 and 662, of the Records and along the existing City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 213 of 1993 a distance of 2650.18 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the east line of property acquired by the Glen Oaks Home (for the Glen Retirement Village) described in Conveyance Book 2080, Page 618, and in Donation Book “L”, Page 587, of the Records in the SE/4 of Section 5 (T16N-R13W) and being a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 173 of 1987; run thence south 00_ 59' 34' east a distance of 1249.12 feet, more or less, along the said east line of the Glen Retirement Village property as acquired, and along the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 173 of 1987, to a point in the centerline of Bayou Pierre and to the southwest corner of a 268.00 acre tract of land first described and designated as Tract No. 3 in said Book 1727, Page 77, of the survey recorded in 1979 of the Records in the NE/4 of Section 8(T16N-R13W); run thence southeasterly along the centerline of Bayou Pierre the following fifteen (15) courses to an intersection with the south common corner of Tract No. 3 and Tract No. 4 of the said survey of 1979 in the N/2 of Section 9 (T16N-R13W):

South 64_ 57' 40' east a distance of 1078.98 feet;

south 62_ 17' 53" east a distance of 172.40 feet;

south 74_ 20' 07" east a distance of 392.59 feet;

south 76_ 43' 06" east a distance of 239.41 feet;

north 88_ 12' 36" east a distance of 128.06 feet;

south 74_ 35' 42" east a distance of 335.04 feet;

south 88_ 26' 06" east a distance of 183.07 feet;

south 77_ 37' 51" east a distance of 116.71 feet;

south 66_ 48' 05" east a distance of 495.03 feet;

south 47_ 25' 10" east a distance of 351.75 feet;

south 61_ 41' 57" east a distance of 251.00 feet;

south 53_ 31' 51" east a distance of 343.21 feet;

south 44_ 42' 33" east a distance of 417.91 feet;

south 54_ 31' 56" east a distance of 286.09 feet; and

south 54_ 32' 32" east a distance of 385.74 feet to

the said south common corner of Tracts Nos. 3 and 4; run thence, leaving the centerline of Bayou Pierre, north along the east line of Tract No. 3 a distance of 3237.96 feet to a point in the centerline of old Sand Beach Bayou Canal in the S/2 of Section 4 (T16N-R13W); run thence in a northwesterly direction along the centerline of the bayou, and along the northeasterly line of Tract No. 3, north 36_ 56' 21" west a distance of 160.04 feet and north 40_ 48' 22" west a distance of 274.13 feet to the south line of the City of Shreveport’s 4.22 acre sanitary sewer pump station tract; continue thence running northwesterly along the centerline of the old Sand Beach Bayou Canal a distance of 608.92 feet, more or less, to the said intersection with the south right-of-way line of the 50 foot-wide East Flournoy Lucas Road, the point of beginning, and containing 268.00 acres, more or less.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City the above-described property.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is hereby assigned to Council District “D”.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to file, within ten(10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the District Court for Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by this ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to record a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for 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 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 206 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT - A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF THE SHIRLEY FRANCIS ROAD IN THE NE/4 OF SECTION 5 (T16N-R15W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

TAG NO. 04-04

BY: COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statues of 1950 provides for annexation by petition; and

WHEREAS, petitions were signed by more than the required percentage in property value of the area described below has been filed with the City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, the following described property, to-wit:

Begin at the point of intersection of the west line of the E/2 of the NE/4 of Section 5 (T16N-R15W), with the north line of Lot 1 of Oak Creek Ranch, Unit No. 1, Subdivision, as recorded in Map Book 4050, Page 63, of the Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and being a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 41 of 1984; run thence, from said point of beginning, north 89_ 38' 10" west along the north line of Lot 1 of Oak Creek Ranch Unit No. 1 a distance of 302.07 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of Lot 1; run thence along the west line of Lot 1 and along a portion of the easterly line of Lot 1000 of Oak Creek Ranch Unit No. 1 the following 5 distances to an intersection with the south right-of-way line of the 80 foot-wide Shirley Francis Road: South 22_ 47' 18" west a distance of 151.11 feet; north 67_ 12' 42" west a distance of 73.14 feet to the point of curve of a curve to the right or north having a radius of 279.48 feet, a tangent of 185.64 feet, and a central angle of 67_ 11' 15"; run thence along the arc of said curve a distance of 327.73 feet; run thence north 00_ 01' 28" west a distance of 127.56 feet to the point of curve of a curve to the right or east having a radius and a tangent of 20.00 feet and a central angle of 90_ 00' 00"; run thence along the arc of said curve a distance of 31.42 feet to the said intersection with the south right-of-way line of the 80 foot-wide Shirley Francis Road ( Note: For reference, said intersection point is located 1899.17 feet west of the east line of Section 5 (T16N-R15W) as measured along the south line of the road); run thence along the south line of the road south 89_ 58' 32" west a distance of 110.00 feet; run thence along the westerly lines of the Oak Creek Ranch, Unit No.1, Subdivision the following 6 directions to an intersection with the southwest corner of Lot 7 of said Oak Creek Ranch, Unit No. 1, Subdivision: South 00_ 01' 28" east a distance of 147.56 feet; run thence

north 89_ 58' 32" east a distance of 30.00 feet to the point of curve of a curve to the left or south having a radius of 339.48 feet, a tangent of 140.39 feet, and a central angle of 44_ 56' 05"; run thence along the arc of said curve a distance of 266.24 feet; run thence

south 04_ 17' 47" east a distance of 395.67 feet; run thence

north 89_ 58' 28" east a distance of 319.71 feet; run thence

south 00_ 01' 32" east a distance of 510.00 feet to the said southwest corner of Lot 7 of Oak Creek Ranch Unit No. 1; continue thence running

south 00_ 01' 32" east a distance of 17.55 feet; run thence

south 74_ 55' 03" west a distance of 95.19 feet; run thence

west a distance of 92.51 feet; run thence

south 87_ 54' 00" west a distance of 131.04 feet; run thence

south 68_ 34' 01" west a distance of 144.56 feet; run thence

south 55_ 39' 57" west a distance of 229.88 feet; run thence

south 55_ 45' 32" west a distance of 100.28 feet; run thence

south 39_ 06' 54" west a distance of 85.42 feet; run thence

south 00_ 18' 16" east a distance of 927.92 feet to the south line of the said NE/4 of Section 5 (T16N-R15W); run thence along the south line of the NE/4 of Section 5 north 89_ 52' 24" east a distance of 995.97 feet, more or less, to the intersection with the said west line of the E/2 of the NE/4 of Section 5 and to a point on the present City limits line of said Annexation Ordinance No. 41 of 1984; run thence north 00_ 21' 05" west along the west line of the E/2 of the NE/4 of Section 5 and along the existing City limits line a distance of 2273.75 feet, more or less, to the intersection with the north line of Lot 1 of the Oak Creek Ranch, Unit No.1, Subdivision, the point of beginning, and containing 35.877 acres, more or less.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the

City of Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City the above-described property.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is hereby assigned to Council District “G”.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to file, within ten(10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the District Court for Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by this ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to record a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for 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 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 207 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT - A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY INTERSECTION OF THE FLOURNOY LUCAS ROAD WITH PINES ROAD IN THE N/2 OF SECTION 1 (T16N-R15W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

TAG NO. 03-05

WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statues of 1950 provides for annexation by petition; and

WHEREAS, a petition was signed by more than the required percentage in property value of the area described below has been filed with the City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, the following described property, to-wit:

Begin at the point of intersection of the northeasterly right-of-way line of the 100 foot-wide Texas and Pacific Railway with the north line of the NW/4 of Section 1(T16N-R15W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and being a point on the present City limits line established by Annexation Ordinance No. 165 of 1968; run thence, from said point of beginning, south 89_ 30' 20" west along the north line of Section 1 across the 100 foot-wide T & P Railway and across the 60 foot-wide Flournoy Lucas Road a distance of 383.89 feet to a point on the southwesterly right-of-way line of the road; run thence south 66_ 21' east across the NW/4 of Section 1 along the said south line of the road a distance of 341.79 feet, more or less, to a point on the road located north 66_ 21' west a distance of 634.55 feet from the west right-of-way line of Pines Road; run thence south 14_ 35' 23" west a distance of 274.67 feet; run thence south 00_ 01' 26' east a distance of 906.07 feet to a point on the south line of the NE/4 of the NW/4 of Section 1; run thence north 89_ 39' 31" east along the south line of the NE/4 of the NW/4 of Section 1 a distance of 292.28 feet; run thence north 11_ 36' 01" east a distance of 200.00 feet, run thence north 89_ 39' 31" east a distance of 300.00 feet to the intersection with the west right-of-way line of the 100 foot-wide Pines Road as dedicated in Map Book 1450, Page 155, of the Records of Caddo Parish; run thence south 11_ 36' 01" west along the west line of the Pines road a distance of 200.00 feet, more or less, to the said south line of the NE/4 of the NW/4 of Section 1; run thence north 89_ 39' 31" east along the south line a distance of 110.00 feet across the Pines Road to a point on the east right-of-way line thereof and to a point on the existing City limits line established by Annexation Ordinances Nos. 274 of 1979 and 13 of 1983; run thence along the east right-of-way line of Pines Road and along the existing City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 274 of 1979 the following three directions: North 00_ 28' 30" east a distance of 5.85 feet to the point of curve of a curve to the left or north having a central angle of 19_ 58' 49", a tangent of 146.33 feet, and a radius of 830.69 feet; run along the arc of said curve a distance of 289.68 feet; and north 00_ 28' 30" east a distance of 572.39 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way line of the Flournoy Lucas Road and to a point on the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 63 of 1970 in the NE/4 of Section 1 (T16N-R15W); run thence along the City limits line of Ordinance No. 63 of 1970 the following two directions: North 66_ 21' west along the south line of the Flournoy Lucas Road a distance of 54.72 feet to the north-south centerline of Section 1 (T16N-R15W); and north 00_ 28' 30" east along the said centerline of the section and across the 60 foot-wide Flournoy Lucas Road and across the 100 foot-wide Texas and Pacific Railway a distance of 175.62 feet, more or less, to a point on the north right-of-way line thereof of the railroad and to a point on the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance Nos. 165 of 1968 and 119 of 1969; run thence north 66_ 21' west along the northeasterly line of the T. & P. Railway and along the existing City limits line of Ordinance No. 165 of 1968 to the intersection with the said north line of the NW/4 of Section 1 (T16N-R15W), the point of beginning, and containing 19.19 acres, more or less.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City the above-described property.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is hereby assigned to Council District “E”.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to file, within ten(10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the District Court for Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by this ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to record a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for 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 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 208 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT - A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERN LOOP ROAD IN THE SE/4 OF SECTION 20 AND IN THE NE/4 OF SECTION 29(T16N-R13W),CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

TAG NO. 03-01

WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statues of 1950 provides for annexation by petition; and

WHEREAS, petitions were signed by more than the required percentage in property value of the area described below has been filed with the City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, the following described property, to-wit:

Begin at the point of intersection of the west line of the SE/4 of Section 20 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana with the southwesterly right-of-way line of the 145 foot-wide Southern Loop Road (Parish fee per Book 2966, Page 331, and originally called the East-West Road and renamed per Book 3306, Page 596, and now owned by the City of Shreveport per Book 3521, Page 124), and being a point on the present City limits of Annexation Ordinance No. 202 of 2002; run thence, from said point of beginning, south 01° 03' 46" west along the north-south centerline of Section 20 a distance of 566.56 feet to the intersection of the common line of Sections 20 and 29 (T16N-R13W); run thence south 01° 04' 22" west along the north-south centerline of Section 29 a distance of 446.95 feet; run thence in an easterly, northerly, and southeasterly direction across the N/2 of the NE/4 of Section 29 the following 13 directions to the intersection with the northwest corner of Lot 23 of the Norris Ferry Crossing, Unit No. 1, Subdivision as per Book 3500, Page 160, of the Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana:

South 88° 55' 38" east a distance of 264.00 feet;

north 01° 04' 22" east a distance of 349.16 feet;

north 54° 49' 28" east a distance of 7.58 feet;

south 68° 30' 33' east a distance of 848.30 feet;

south 69° 17' 25" east a distance of 68.42 feet;

south 70° 47' 01" east a distance of 62.36 feet;

south 72° 16' 02" east a distance of 67.56 feet;

south 73° 45' 03" east a distance of 62.36 feet;

south 75° 14' 04" east a distance of 67.56 feet;

south 76° 43' 05" east a distance of 62.36 feet;

south 78° 12' 05" east a distance of 67.56 feet

south 79° 41' 06" east a distance of 62.36 feet; and

south 80° 51' 04" east a distance of 39.77 feet to the said northwest corner of Lot 23 of the Norris Ferry Crossing, Unit No. 1, Subdivision and to a point on the present City limits line established by Annexation Ordinance No. 112 of 2001 (Note: Said NW corner of Lot 23 is located 790.81 feet, more or less, north of the south line of the N/2 of the NE/4 of Section 29); run thence north 01° 06' 20" east along the existing City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 112 of 2001 a distance of 266.71 feet; run thence in a northwesterly and northeasterly direction across the NE/4 of Section 29 and across the SE/4 of Section 20 the following 10 directions to the intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way line of the 135 foot-wide Southern Loop Road in SE/4 of Section 20:

North 79° 52' 08" west a distance of 50.52 feet;

north 78° 21' 52" west a distance of 58.95 feet;

north 76° 51' 35" west a distance of 58.95 feet;

north 75° 21' 19" west a distance of 58.95 feet;

north 73° 51' 02" west a distance of 58.95 feet;

north 72° 17' 00" west a distance of 63.86 feet;

north 70° 39' 12" west a distance of 63.86 feet;

north 69° 05' 42" west a distance of 59.07 feet;

north 68° 30' 33" west a distance of 995.02 feet; and

north 54° 49' 28" east a distance of 359.07 feet to the said southwesterly right-of-way of the Southern Loop Road and to a point on the present City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 202 of 2002; run thence along the southwesterly line of the Southern Loop Road and along the existing City limits line the following 4 directions to the intersection with the west line of the SE/4 of Section 20 (T16N-R13W):

North 68° 30' 33" west a distance of 30.29 feet; north 74° 13' 31" west a distance of 100.40 feet; north 68° 30' 33" west a distance of 89.95 feet to the point of curve of a curve to the left or west having a central angle of 11° 06' 53" and a radius of 1592.02 feet; run thence along the arc of said curve a distance of 308.83 feet to the intersection with the said west line of the SE/4 of Section 20, the point of beginning, and containing 15.237 acres, more or less.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City the above-described property.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is hereby assigned to Council District “D”.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to file, within ten(10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the District Court for Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by this ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to record a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for 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 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 209 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT - A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED ALONG THE ELLERBE ROAD IN THE SW/4 OF SECTION 5 AND IN THE NW/4 OF SECTION 8 (T16N-R13W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

TAG NO. 03-02

WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statues of 1950 provides for annexation by petition; and

WHEREAS, a petition was signed by more than the required percentage in property value of the area described below has been filed with the City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, the following described property, to-wit:

From the northeast corner of Lot “B” of the Los Robles Subdivision as per plat in Map Book 1450, Page 169, of the Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana in the SW/4 of Section 5 (T16N-R13W), run south 21° 52' 30" west along the east line of Lot “B”, and along an extension thereof, a distance of 296.10 feet to the most southeasterly corner of the 50 foot-wide Golf Ridge Drive and to the point of beginning of tract of land herein described (point of beginning is also a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 173 of 1987) : Run thence, from said point of beginning, along the south and southeasterly right-of-way line of the Golf Ridge Drive as dedicated on the Los Robles plat the following six directions to the intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of the 80 foot-wide Ellerbe Road ( La. Hwy. 523) in the NW/4 of Section 8 (T16N-R13W): North 70° 04' west a distance of 15.00 feet to the point of curve of a curve to the left or west having a central angle of 19° 48' and a radius of 347.43 feet; run thence along the arc of said curve a distance of 120.06 feet; run thence north 89° 52' 00" west a distance of 94.60 feet to the point of curve of a curve to the left or south having a central angle of 53° 07' 00" and a radius of 110.10 feet; run thence along the arc of said curve a distance of 102.07 feet; run thence south 37° 01' 00" west a distance of 238.87 feet to the point of curve of a curve to the left or south having a central angle of 100° 43' 00" and a radius of 16.57 feet; run thence along the arc of said curve a distance of 29.13 feet to the said intersection with the northeasterly line of the Ellerbe Road and to a point on the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 173 of 1987; run thence south 63° 42' 00" east along the northeasterly line of Ellerbe Road and along the existing City limits line a distance of 278.49 feet to the most westerly corner of the All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church addressed at 9449 Ellerbe Road; run thence along the westerly line of the church property and along the existing City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 173 of 1987 north 38° 27' 37" east a distance of 173.50 feet and north 23° 16' 00" east a distance of 236.60 feet to the said most southeasterly corner of Golf Ridge Drive, the point of beginning, and containing 2.44 acres, more or less.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City the above-described property.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is hereby assigned to Council District “D”.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to file, within ten(10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the District Court for Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by this ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to record a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for 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 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 210 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT - A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED ALONG THE EAST FLOURNOY LUCAS ROAD (LA.HWY. 523) IN SECTIONS 3 AND 4 (T16N-R13W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND A PORTION OF LA. HWY. 1 (YOUREE DRIVE), AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

TAG NO. 03-03

WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statues of 1950 provides for annexation by petition; and

WHEREAS, a petition was signed by more than the required percentage in property value of the area described below has been filed with the City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, the following described property, to-wit:

Begin at the point of intersection of the southwesterly right-of-way line of the 100 foot-wide Texas & Pacific Railway with the centerline of the old Sand Beach Bayou Canal, as it existed prior to its dredging in 1957, in Lot 4 of the Daniels Lands Subdivision as per Book “S” Page 884, of the Map Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana in the NW/4 of Section 4 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, and being a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 145 of 1999; run thence, from said point of beginning, in a southerly direction along the said centerline of the old Sand Beach Bayou Canal as it existed in 1957 a distance of 3375.00 feet, more or less, to a point on the south right-of-way line of the 50.00 foot-wide East Flournoy Lucas Road (La. Hwy. 523) in the SW/4 of said Section 4, and to the northeast corner of the AEP/SWEPCO 2.68 acre tract as described in Book 1247, Pages 751-770 and Book 1454, Page 54, of the Records (Note: Said point/ corner in the centerline of the bayou with the south line of the road is described as being located 3156.50 feet west and 25.00 feet south of the accepted northeast corner of Lot 16 of the Daniels Lands); run thence east along the south right-of-way line of the 50 foot-wide East Flournoy Road (La. Hwy. 523) across the S/2 of Section 4 and across the SW/4 of Section 3 (T16N-R13W) to the intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way line of Youree Drive (La. Hwy. 1) as acquired by the State of Louisiana, Dept. Of Highways in 1954 in Book 730, Page 93; run thence south 36_ 51' 40" east along the southwesterly right-of-way line of La. Hwy. 1 as it existed in 1954 and as it exists today to a point opposite at a right angle to the intersection of the northeasterly right-of-way line of La. Hwy. 1 with the westerly right-of-way line of the East Kings Highway, with intersection point of the two roads being further identified as being the southernmost corner of the 0.514 acre tract acquired by the La. DOTD in 1970 as Parcel No. 11-1 for the widening of La. Hwy 1 in State Project No. 53-08-13 and recorded in Book 1273, Page 486; run thence at a right angle north 53_ 08' 20" east a distance of 120.00 feet across the La. Hwy. 1 right-of-way to the point of intersection of the northeasterly line of La. Hwy. 1 with the westerly line of East Kings Highway and to the southernmost corner of the 0.514 acre Parcel No. 11-1 tract; run thence north 15_ 22' 40" west along the common right-of-way line of La. Hwy. 1 as widened in 1970 and East Kings Highway a distance of 168.20 feet; run thence, after leaving the said common right-of-way line, along the northeasterly right-of-way line of La. Hwy. 1 as per Parcel No. 11-1 the following four distances: South 53_ 08' 20" west a distance of 26.60 feet; north 36_ 51' 40" west a distance of 175.00 feet; north 48_ 10' 18" west a distance of 101.98 feet; and north 36_ 51' 40" west (Note: Running along this bearing the R-O-W width of the highway is 135 feet) a distance of 601.85 feet to a point on the original right-of-way line of State Project No. 53-08-06 La. Hwy. 1 in 1954 as described in said Book 730, Page 93, of the Records (Note: Said point on the La. Hwy. 1 of 1954 is located south 10_ 47' 51" west a distance of 38.64 feet from the south right-of-way line of the East Flournoy Lucas Road); run thence north 10_ 47' 51" east along the La. Hwy. 1 right-of-way line of 1954 a distance of 38.64 feet to the south right-of-way line of the East Flournoy Lucas Road in the SW/4 of Section 3 (T16N-R13W); run thence in a northwest direction across the East Flournoy Lucas Road to north right-of-way line thereof and to the southeast corner of the triangular-shaped parcel acquired by the La. DOTD in 1954 for Project No. 53-09-05 and is recorded in Book 709, Page 167, of the Records, and being a point on the present City limits line as established by Annexation Ordinance No. 45 of 1973: run thence west across the La. Hwy. 1 right-of-way and across the Texas & Pacific Railway right-of-way and along the north right-of-way line of the East Flournoy Lucas Road and along the existing City limits lines of Annexation Ordinances Nos. 45 of 1973 and 95 of 1960 and 33 of 1965 to a point on the north right-of-way line of the East Flournoy Lucas Road located 1696.40 feet west and 25.00 feet north of the southeast corner of Lot 9 of the Daniels Land (southeast corner of NE/4 of SE/4 of Section 4 (T16N-R13W); run thence north 00_ 27' east along the existing City limits line of Annexation Ordinances Nos. 33 of 1965 and 95 of 1960 a distance of 1125.57 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 27 of Southwood Terrace Subdivision as recorded in Book 800, Page 679, of the Records, and being a point on the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 45 of 1981; run thence along the existing City limits lines established by Annexation Ordinance No. 45 of 1981 across Section 4 (T16N-R13W) the following six directions: North 89_ 50' west a distance of 200.00 feet; south 00_ 27' west a distance of 1125.40 feet to the north right-of-way line of the East Flournoy Lucas Road; north 89_ 50' west along the north line of the road a distance of 80.00 feet; north 00_ 27' east a distance of 1125.40 feet; north 89_ 50' west a distance of 920.00 feet; and north 16_ 53' west a distance of 1611.70 feet to the intersection with the said southwesterly right-of-way line of the 100 foot-wide Texas & Pacific Railway in the NW/4 of Section 4(T16N-R13W), and being a point on the City limits line of Annexation Ordinance No. 145 of 1999; run thence north 63_ 36' west along the southwesterly line of the T & P Railway and along the existing City limits line of Ordinance No. 145 of 1999 to the intersection with the centerline of the old Sand Beach Bayou Canal as it existed prior to its dredging in 1957 in Lot 4 of the Daniels Lands in the NW/4 of Section 4, the point of beginning, and containing 79.574 acres, more or less.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City the above-described property.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is hereby assigned to Council District “D”.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to file, within ten(10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the District Court for Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by this ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to record a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for 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 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 211 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT - A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SW/4 OF SECTION 29 (T16N-R13W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FOR SOUTHERN TRACE, PHASE IV, SECTION XVII - A/B, SUBDIVISIONS, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

TAG NO. 03-04

WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statues of 1950 provides for annexation by petition; and

WHEREAS, a petition was signed by more than the required percentage in property value of the area described below has been filed with the City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, the following described property, to-wit:

From the northwest corner of the SW/4 of Section 29 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, run north 89_ 44' 56" east along the north line of the SW/4 of Section 29 a distance of 253.03 feet to the point of beginning of a tract of land herein described: Run thence, from said point of beginning, south 44_ 41' 18" west a distance of 354.19 feet to a point on the west line of Section 29 (T16N-R13W); run thence south 00_ 54' 01" east along the west line of the section a distance of 739.69 feet; run thence east a distance of 139.66 feet to a point and corner on the present city limits line established by Annexation Ordinance No. 78 of 1994; run thence in a northeasterly direction across the SW/4 of Section 29 and along the existing City limits line the following three directions: North 41_ 59' 07" east a distance of 140.53 feet; north 35_ 21' 41" east a distance of 737.71 feet; and north 00_ 15' 04" west a distance of 287.44 feet to a point on the said north line of the SW/4 of Section 29 (T16N-R13W); run thence south 89_ 44' 56" west along the north line of the SW/4 a distance of 421.89 feet to the said point on the north line located 253.03 feet from the northwest corner of the SW/4 of the section, the point of beginning, and containing 10.40 acres, more or less.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the

City of Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City the above-described property.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is hereby assigned to Council District “D”.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to file, within ten(10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the District Court for Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by this ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to record a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for 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 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 238 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND ABANDONING THE T- SHAPED ALLEYWAY BOUNDED BY SIMMS AND FINN STREETS AND WEST OF CLYDE E. FANT MEMORIAL PARKWAY TO AIRPORT DRIVE IN THE HENDERSON IRON SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 25 (T18N-R14W), SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, today the Property Management Section of the Department of Operational Services has received a request to close and abandon a portion the above identified public right-of-way; and

WHEREAS, Water and Sewerage Engineering has reviewed this request and has no objections to this portion of the alleyway being closed and abandoned.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the alleyway as described above and acquired by the City of Shreveport and recorded in Book 33, Page 531, 1904 of the Records and as shown and as indicated on the plat attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby closed and abandoned.

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

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof is invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without 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. 180 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 CROSS LAKE BOULEVARD 890 FEET WEST OF DILG LEAGUE, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1D & SPI-5, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND CROSS LAKE PRESERVATION DISTRICT , TO R-1D-E, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE EXTENDED USE DISTRICT AND SPI-5-E, CROSS LAKE PRESERVATION EXTENDED USE DISTRICT, LIMITED TO “ RESIDENTIAL USE, A MARINA, BAIT STAND, WITH BOAT AND TRAILER REPAIRS AND THE OUTSIDE STORAGE OF BOATS AND TRAILERS” 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 west side of Dilg League, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1D & SPI-5, Urban, One-Family Residence District and Cross Lake Preservation District, to R-1D-E, Urban, One-Family Residence Extended Use and SPI-5-E, Cross Lake Preservation Extended Use District, limited to “ residential use, a marina, bait stand, with boat and trailer repairs and the outside storage of boats and trailers” .

A tract of land containing a total of 2.06 acres, M/L located in Section 4 T17N-R14W, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, being more particularly described as follows: Lot W of Lakeshore Heights, Unit No. 2 together with an adjoining tract of land bounded generally by the rear lot line of said Lot W, the N’ly and S’ly side lines said Lot W extended to the waters edge of Cross Lake and the waters edge of Cross Lake, being described as follows: beginning at the common rear corner of Lots V and W, Lakeshore Heights, Unit No. 2; run thence N61°25'W along the N’ly lot line of said Lot W, a distance of 18.3 feet to the waters edge of Cross Lake; thence traverse along said waters edge the following courses and distances: S71°35'W, 18.7 feet; S26°37'W, 29.8 feet; S1°43'W, 126.4 feet; S2°03'W, 101.6 feet to the point of intersection with the S’ly lot line of said Lot W extended, leaving the waters edge; run S81°55'E along said extended lot line, a distance of 161.0 feet to the common rear corner of Lots W and X, Lakeshore Heights, Unit No. 2, said point lying on the 172.0 foot contour; thence N2°45'E along the rear lot line of said Low W and contour a distance of 85.8 feet; run thence N30°00'W along the rear lot line of said Lot W and contour, a distance of 217.8 feet to the P-O-B.

SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to compliance with the following stipulation:

2. Development of the property shall be in strict compliance with a revised site plan to be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator showing landscape to ordinance standards with any significant changes or additions requiring further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 199 OF 2004 A P P E A L

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CRESWELL AND OLIVE STREETS, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM B-2-E, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT, TO   B-2-E, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT LIMITED TO “AUTO REPAIR, FILLING STATION, AND AUTO SALES”, ONLY, 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 Lots 6, 7 and S 25 feet of Lot 5, Block D Texarkana Annex, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, located on the NW corner of Creswell and Olive Application, be and the same is hereby changed from B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District, to B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District, limited to “auto repair, filling station, and auto sales”, only.

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

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

2. The maximum number of automobiles for sale shall be limited to no more than three on the site at any one time.

3. Approval is granted for a one year period only, with any extension requiring re-application to the Planning Commission. Request for extension shall be at no fee to the applicant if submitted prior to the expiration of the time period.

4. No body work shall be done at this location.

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

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

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 199 of 2004: An Ordinance to re-zone the NW corner of Creswell & Olive, from B-2-E, to B-2-E limited to “auto repair, filling station and auto sales only.”

By: Councilman Monty Walford

In Section II, add a new stipulation to read as follows:

5. Only the three vehicles allowed for sale may be displayed in front of the business. All other vehicles must be stored in the fenced area behind the business except during business hours when they are being worked on. The screening fence and the entrance to the rear yard must be approved by the staff of the Metropolitan Planning Commission.

ORDINANCE NO. 240 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST 70^th AND DIXIE MEADOWS DRIVE, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-A, RESIDENCE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, TO R-3, URBAN, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AND B-2, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS  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 southeast of the intersection of East 70^th and Dixie Meadows Drive, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from R-A, Residence Agriculture District, to R-3, Urban, Multiple-Family Residence District and B-2, Neighborhood Business District:

A 9.50 acre (M/L) tract of land in Section 37, T17N-R13W, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and more particularly described as follows: R-3 Zoned property: commence at the intersection of the S’ly R-O-W of E 70^th Street and the Southern boundary line of Lot 6, Dixie Meadows Subdivision, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, thence proceed E’ly along said S line for a distance of 615.06 feet to the P-O-B of the tract herein described; thence proceed E’ly along said S line for a distance of 803.50 feet; thence proceed N’ly for a distance of 515.36 feet; thence proceed W’ly for a distance of 803.50 feet; thence proceed S’ly for a distance of 515.36 feet to the P-O-B. B-3 Zoned property: An 8.18 acre (M/L) tract of land in Section 37, T17N-R13W, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and more particularly described as follows: beginning at the intersection of the S’ly R-O-W of East 70^th and the Southern boundary line of Lot 6, Dixie Meadows Subdivision, Shreveport, Caddo

Parish, Louisiana, thence proceed E’ly along the said south line for a distance of 615.06 feet; thence proceed N’ly for a distance of 515.36 feet; thence proceed E’ly for a distance of 695.69 feet; thence proceed N’ly for a distance of 72.27 feet to said S’ly R-O-W; thence proceed S’ly along said S’ly R-O-W to the P-O-B.

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

1 Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with the revised site plan submitted at the December 1, 2004 Public Hearing. Any significant changes or additions shall require further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. Site development plan for the entire tract, and all portions thereof, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any permits for these tracts.

3. The entire development shall be in strict compliance with requirements from both the City of Shreveport Engineering Department and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD).

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 242 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST STONER AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE CLYDE FANT PARKWAY, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-3, URBAN, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AND B-2, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO R-1H (PUD), URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT); B-3, COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT TO R-3, URBAN, MULTIPLE-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 south side of East Stoner at its intersection with the Clyde Fant Parkway, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from R-3, Urban, Multiple-Family Residence District, and B-2, Neighborhood Business District, to R-1H(PUD), Urban, One-Family Residence District (Planned Unit Development); B-3, Community Business District to R-3, Urban, Multiple-Family Residence District;

A tract of land in the NE/4 of Section 5, T17N-R13W, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana: R-3 and B-2 to R-1H (PUD): Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 all in the River Parkway Subdivision, being 24,1763 acres. B-3 to R-3: From the NE corner of said Section 5 run N89°22'36"W along the centerline of Stoner Avenue a distance of 879.10 feet; thence run S649.49 feet to a point on the S R-O-W line of Larkin Edwards Drive said point being the P-O-B of description of subject tract, thence from P-O-B on the said S R-O-W line run S34°19'27"E a distance of 473.59 feet; thence run S57°17'53"W a distance of 835.49 feet to the E’ly R-O-W line of said River Parkway Boulevard, said point on the R-O-W being on a curve; thence run NW’ly along said E’ly R-O-W line on a curve to the right a distance of 842.81 feet to the start of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1554.54 feet, said arc having a central angle of 31°03'15", a chord bearing of N19°10'24"W and length of 832.54 feet; thence run along a curve to the right having a length of 31.68 feet, a radius of 20 feet and a central angle of 89°15'11" to the S R-O-W line of Larkin Edwards Drive, thence run N87°06'19"E along the S R-O-W line of said Drive a distance of 691.37 feet to the P-O-B, said parcel containing 12.01 acres, M/L.

SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to

compliance with the following stipulations:

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

2. Development of the property shall begin within a period of two (2) years from the date of the adoption of this ordinance and the failure to comply with such stipulation will cause the rezoning herein described to become null and void, and the zoning classification will automatically revert to B-2 & R-3. Request for extension shall be at no fee to the applicant if submitted prior to the expiration of the time period.

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.

A P P E A L

ORDINANCE NO. 243 OF 2004

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JORDAN AND HIGHLAND, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM SPI-1-E, HIGHLAND URBAN CONSERVATION/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT (LIMITED TO HOSPITAL, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND PARKING LOT) TO SPI-1-E, HIGHLAND URBAN CONSERVATION/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT, (LIMITED “TO HOSPITAL, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND PARKING LOT, AND TO INCLUDE SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELING AND TREATMENT FACILITY,” ONLY, 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 southeast corner of Jordan and Highland, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from SPI-1-E, Highland Urban Conversation/Extended Use District (limited to hospital, administrative offices and parking lot) to SPI-1-E, Highland Urban Conversation/Extended Use District, (limited “to hospital, administrative offices and parking lot and to include substance abuse counseling and treatment facility,” only:

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and the N/2 of Lot 8, lying next to and adjoining Lot 7 , and the N/2 of the abandoned alley lying S of Lots 4, 5 and 6, and the S/2 of the abandoned alley lying next to and adjoining Lot 7, Block 2, Howard Cole Subdivision, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to

compliance with the following stipulations:

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

6. In the event that parking becomes a problem and it is brought to the attention of the Planning Director or the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator shall have the right to require the applicant to provide additional on-site parking to ordinance standards. Additional landscaping is encouraged.

7. Approval requires that the facility remain a State licensed operation. Failure to maintain this status will render Planning Commission approval null and void.

8. The maximum number of residents shall be limited in accordance to State regulations, but not to exceed 35.

9. The maximum number of employees at the facility at any given shift shall be limited to 10.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 244 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 YOUREE DRIVE 50 FEET SOUTH OR ARCHER, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM SPI-3-E, COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OVERLAY/EXTENDED USE (B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS) DISTRICT, TO SPI-3-E, COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OVERLAY/EXTENDED USE (B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS) DISTRICT, LIMITED TO “A LOAN COMPANY, AND TO INCLUDE A GIFT AND ANTIQUE SHOP,” ONLY 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 Lot 403 Broadmoor Subd., Unit 2, and 8 feet strip adjacent on W, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, located on the W side of Youree Drive 50 feet S of Archer, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from SPI-3-E, Commercial Corridor Overlay/Extended Use (B-1, Buffer Business) District, to SPI-3-E, Commercial Corridor Overlay/Extended Use (B-1, Buffer Business) District, limited to “a loan company, and to include a gift and antique shop,” only.

SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to compliance with the following stipulation:

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

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

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

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Ordinance No. 98 of 2004: An ordinance authorizing the Lease of City-Owned property to North Shreveport Development Corporation, Inc. (B/Walford) (Tabled December 27, 2004)

2. SOB Appeal: Ms. Lisa Jamerson DECISION RENDERED - January 10, 2005

3. Alcohol Retail Permit Appeal: Mr. John Hardy, H&H Lounge. (Special Meeting scheduled - February 18, 2005)

4. BAC-115-04: 315 Pierre Avenue, SHREVEPORT GROCERY, INC, Martha McJunkins - Tanoli, Southeast corner of Pierre Avenue and Garden, Special Exception Use in a B-2 District, Liquor Store. (A/Lester)

NEW BUSINESS: None

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES:

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, my RiverFront Task Force meets tomorrow at 1:30 at DDA Conference Room and certainly any of you gentlemen that would like to attend are welcome.

Councilman Gibson: Outstanding.

CLERK’S REPORT:

1. Letter of Appeal: C-1-05, 1901 Ford Street, JENNY & ROGER CHRISTIAN L.L.C., Southwest corner of Ford & Dale Street, from R-3 to B-2, Grocery Stor with waiver of fencing requirement or other uses within this zoning classification. (A/Lester)

Mr. Thompson: We received a letter on C-1-05 and it can be heard on January 25^th.

Councilman Gibson: Any other information for Clerk’s Report?

Mr. Thompson: We have nothing further.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m.

___________________________________

//s// Mike Gibson, Chairman

___________________________________

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