CC 3827

03 20 06

Council Proceedings of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana

March 14, 2006

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana was called to order by Chairman Calvin Ben Lester, Jr. at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 14, 2006, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Green.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Robertson.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody (Arrived at 3:22 p.m.), Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jackson is out of town.

Councilman Lester: Yes, Mr. Thompson I did get in contact with him and understand that he is out of the jurisdiction at this time.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Hogan to approve the minutes of the Administrative Conference, Monday, February 27, 2006 and Council Meeting, Tuesday, February 28, 2006. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

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

Councilman Lester: Mr. Mayor, do you have any distinguished guests or communications today?

Mayor Hightower: Nothing today Mr. Chairman.

Resolution No. 31 of 2006: A resolution to congratulate the Southwood High School Girls Basketball Team for winning the Louisiana Class 5A State Championship. (E/Hogan)

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Resolution No. 31, I’m going to make a motion to withdraw. Mr. Thompson, if that’s correct. It will be a withdrawal, not a postponement, but a withdrawal.

Mr. Thompson: Just remove it from the agenda and we’ll put it back on at the meeting.

Councilman Hogan: Remove it from the agenda in order to have it for the next meeting. I spoke with Coach McDowell, and that would have worked better for him. And the purpose of the Resolution of course, is to recognize the Southwood Girls Basketball Team and their 5A Division State Championship.

Councilman Lester: I have to wear my tie next week.

Motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Green to remove Resolution No. 31 of 2006 from the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, I do have a special guest. Mr. Ray Paxton, if you could come forward please sir? For the benefit of my fellow Council Members, we’ll be considering legislation later in the agenda that will grant a written lease to Mr. Paxton for the Paxton Boxing facility which is a city owned building that he’s had for any number of years, but coming this Saturday night, we have the Golden Gloves Championship here in Shreveport at LSU Shreveport, that has been brought to us by Mr. Paxton, and what I would like to do now is jump the gun just a little bit, if I may, and read a proclamation.

Councilman Lester: Sure.

Councilman Walford Read the following Proclamation:

PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS, Ray Paxton, through his work at Paxton’s Youth Boxing Club, has helped mold the minds, bodies and attitudes of young men in Shreveport for more than thirty years; and

WHEREAS, Ray’s primary mission of promoting self esteem, respect for others and good moral conduct has worked to inspire the young people that he trains to become good citizens and productive members of society; and

WHEREAS, under his leadership and guidance, inner city youth realize they can accomplish their goals, live their dreams and excel; and

WHEREAS, in addition to being a teacher, tutor and friend to these young people, Ray has also carried the financial burden of the club for these 30-plus years with only limited outside assistance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, KEITH HIGHTOWER, Mayor of the City of Shreveport, do hereby proclaim Saturday, March 18, 2006, as:

"RAY PAXTON DAY"

in the City of Shreveport, and urge all citizens to recognize Ray’s efforts in improving the lives of young men from throughout the City of Shreveport.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Shreveport to be affixed.

KEITH HIGHTOWER,

MAYOR

Councilman Walford: Again, we’re jumping the gun to present this today, but I would ask the Mayor, if he would to join me in presenting this to Mr. Paxton.

Councilman Green: Mr. Paxton, while they’re coming, are you looking for any new talent?

Mr. Paxton: Always looking for new talent.

Councilman Green: Then sign me up.

Mr. Paxton: Alright. (Unclear)

Councilman Lester: Mr. Paxton, if there is anything that you’d like to say at this time?

Mr. Paxton: I would like to say that I’ve been in boxing for 52 years, and in the City of Shreveport plus Bossier area. We have some of the best athletes come out of this City of Shreveport, and if we can give the help to the youth, I think it would benefit the City of Shreveport greatly, and I’m going to continue to do as long as God gives me the will to do it, I’m going to stay with it. Thank you.

Councilman Lester: Are there any other awards, recognition or distinguished guests from any other members? Thank you.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, I usually don’t like to suspend the rules, but in this case, I would like to make a motion to suspend the rules to consider Ordinance No. 18. I’m afraid Mr. Paxton’s leaving us, and we might have some questions, so if the Council would indulge me and we would consider Ordinance No. 18.

Councilman Green: Second.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green to suspend the rules in order to consider Ordinance No. 18 of 2006. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

Ordinance No. 18 of 2006: An ordinance authorizing the lease of City-owned property to Paxton Youth Boxing Club, Inc., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on February 14, 2006 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 to adopt.

Councilman Walford: I’ll give you a little bit of a very brief discussion waiting to see if Mr. Paxton comes back. Basically I think as we discussed last meeting, Mr. Paxton has been doing this at his own expense for about 30 years. He’s made improvements to the building, now he wants to make some significant improvements, and frankly he doesn’t want to find out that next month, his lease could be terminated. So, what we’re doing is continuing what we’ve already done. To date, Mr. Paxton’s investment has been over $60,000 of his own money, so I would ask the Council to approve this lease.

Councilman Lester: Any other discussion? Far too long coming.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

Councilman Lester: Alright we’re back on our agenda.

Reports:

Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel (To include detailed personnel report from SMG)

Councilman Lester: On yesterday, we had reports from Mr. Antee on Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel. Are there any questions for the Administration?

Councilman Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, I don’t know if this question would go to you or to Mike? Maybe it’s in the works. But is there a way that we could get some brochures or something for the Convention Center, that when potential clients that’s doing business, that we could get a brochure? I received some information from him about an event I was planning, and I just got a letter, a typed letter, and I didn’t know if we were in the process of making some brochures, or someway or another to sell the Convention Center, so I see Mike is coming.

Mayor Hightower: We do have those.

Councilman Lester: Good Afternoon Mr. Carrier.

Councilman Green: Hey Mike, I didn’t see you back there. Do we have - - -?

Mr. Carrier: Yes sir. We’ve got a brochure right now and we have a full collateral package that is being developed currently, with photography of the building with events going on in it. So that is under development right now, and we should have very shortly.

Councilman Green: Okay, so now, you just send out a letter and that’s it?

Mr. Carrier: Well, there should have been a brochure in there with that. I’ll make sure that you get that. There’s a brochure that has all the dimensions of the rooms, etc., in it so - - -

Councilman Green: Oh okay, I just didn’t know, but I just got a letter, and I was hoping that - - -

Mr. Carrier: And I said, there is a full packet of information that now has photographs, now that we’ve had several events in it, we’ve been able to set between the public shows, some of the other events that we’ve had. So, we’ve got some good photography of that, that we’re putting together for a collateral package with all the information.

Councilman Walford: Slightly off the subject, but on the subject as well, Mr. John Kennedy, our State Treasurer, I saw at lunch today, and Mr. Kennedy extended his congratulations on our Convention Center, it was the first time he’d seen it completed. And he was very complimentary, and complimentary of our three floors and hotel, the skeleton, so I thought I would convey that to the Mayor and the rest of the Council.

Property Standards Report

Councilman Lester: On yesterday, we had the Property Standards Report from Mr. Bowie, does anyone have any questions on Property Standards issues for Mr. Bowie?

Public Hearing: None

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

Confirmations and/or Appointments.

Councilman Lester: On yesterday, we had conversation with the Mayor about a series of reappointments. The Chair would like to move to add the reappointments to the 911 Commission and - - - well lets take them one by one. Is there a motion?

Motion by Councilman Robertson, seconded by Councilman Green to add the reappointment s to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Thompson, I think - - - do we need to say who those folks were?

Mr. Thompson: It’s Fred McClanahan, III, Rev. Roy Thomas, Clarence Babineaux and Van Anderson to the 911 Commission for a period of four years.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green to confirm the reappointments to the 911 Commission. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

Councilman Lester: The Chair would also entertain a motion for the reappointment of Sarah Harrington to the MPC.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green to confirm the reappointment of Ms. Harrington to the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Thompson, is it necessary that we vote again, or - - -

Mr. Thompson: No, I assume that the first motion was to suspend the rules for all of these and that was the correct motion.

Councilman Lester: Okay, the Chair would also entertain a motion for the reappointment of Betty Osborne and Rick Holland

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Green to confirm the reappointment of Ms. Betty Osborne and Mr. Rick Holland to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, do we want to address the appointment to the MPC?

Councilman Lester: Well, if you would like to make a motion, the sense I got from the council was that since that one was not a reappointment, that, that one would be placed on the agenda for the next meeting, and we would deal with it at that time. That being the sense that I got from the Council Mr. Thompson, does that require a motion for us to do that?

Mr. Thompson: No, we’ll put it on there automatically, because it will fall within the rules.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda

1. Resolution No. 36 of 2006: A Resolution authorizing the donation of the use of choral risers to allow the Southern University Office of Student Activities to present Judi Ann Mason’s play “Resurrection” and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to add Resolution No. 36 of 2006 to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson.

2. Resolution No. 35 of 2006: A Resolution accepting dedication for Provenance Place, Chestnut Park Lane, and Bridgewater Avenue in the Provenance Commercial Area Block “A”, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Robertson)

Motion by Councilman Robertson, seconded by Councilman Walford to add Resolution No. 35 of 2006 to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

3. Ordinance No. 28 of 2006: An Ordinance authorizing the sale of real property in Shepherd Place Subdivision and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to add Ordinance No. 28 of 2006 to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: None. Absent: Councilmen Carmody and Jackson. 2.

Public Comments (Agenda Items to be Adopted)

Councilman Lester: I have a number of Public Comments. I would like to say to those that want to speak, we are going to be postponing action on the PACE issue. So, if you have come to speak on the PACE issue and you still want to be heard, you obviously still have a right, and the Council will entertain your comments, if you do want to make comment at this time, but we just wanted you to know, be cause we know that there are a number of folks that came down for that today. A number of members of the Central Trade and Labor Council. We’ve got folks from the executive board of Caddo Federation of Teachers, my favorite union, I must say, so that I may go home safely. And a number of other labor leaders in the community, so if you still want to be heard on that particular issue, you have a right to be heard and we still want to hear your comment.

Mr. Michael Williams: (2101 Carver) Mr. Chair, and all that are assembled, I rise to speak about the subject matter that was postponed on the agenda. I consider this to be a personal convicted issue before me because I know what’s it like to be in a union, and what’s it not like to be in a union. Also I’m here because of my mother who worked in inhumane conditions to raise her children as she worked in a nursing home. I recommend to this council and to this City, we have a great city, we’ve done a lot of great things, we’ve championed a lot of causes. I think most of you are going to leave a great legacy in this community and this administration about some things that was a first. But I hope that you would reconsider, reform and re-think. The little people at the bottom, the common people don’t have a voice, because they’re afraid that they’re going to be picked out to be picked on. They’re scared of harassment and repercussions when you talk about joining a union. The little people at the bottom don’t have a voice. But I want to call your attention - - - Pastor, help me on this one, Luke Chapter 3, that talks about let the man who has two coats, give to one, that don’t have none. Ladies and Gentlemen, coats literally mean sharing opportunity, equality and freedom. I believe all the common people want at the bottom is an opportunity in the sharing of the coat. All they want is to be able to fashion a public policy. Lets not get hung up on words because of labels. Many people have died. (Unclear) Randolph was the pioneer, the champion for justice for trade unions. And many of us rest on the shoulders of those people who paved the way for us. I thought it was a time of progress in America, but I see we’re proposing retrogress. Everyday common people, in the trenches, making sure our streets are swept, our grass is manicured in the community, our trash is being picked up. Everyday common people that vote on taxes and proposals, also have family members that vote. All eyes are on the city of Shreveport today. I’m a former Shreveport Fire Fighter, and I know what it’s like to be in a union. Let me say, I know my time is nearing, I came here because people called me and my church members asked me to be here. It’s nothing personal against anyone. It’s just business. But we know business as usual no longer can be accepted. We have to rehearse and re-hash this issue. Most of you are very competent, very intelligent people with despicable backgrounds. And I know what this issue is about today. It’s just about justice. So, I believe we can work in a spirit of compromise. In fact, create some legislation where we can work together and make this city all for one and one for all. But when it comes to taxes and proposals, we’re together, why can’t we be together now? It doesn’t matter if you’re Democrat, Republican, White, Black, male or female. Everybody wins when people work together, and when people at the bottom, the common people, the picked out, the left out, just asking for our help. All they want is democracy, and not hypocrisy. Let this new deal be a good deal and not a raw deal. As I appeal to you, petition you ladies and gentlemen, April Fools is near, don’t fool the people. Thank you.

Rev. Cordell Allen: (2039 Millen Cr) My councilman is the Chair. I just want to say today that there is a lot of bad press going around about the City Workers. And I want to clear up some stuff. First of all the City Council has gotten in their minds along with the Mayor and my apologies to the Mayor and to the City Council, that all we want when we come before this board to this Council is money. We got it in our minds and we’ve got it set that everybody in here, everybody work for the City, all the classified workers, all 900 people want money. This union was started and it’s based on the rules and regulation and better management in this city. We’ve got poor management in this city, on all levels. From the Police Department on down. From Administration here in this building all the was down to the common workers. It’s bad management. We petition this board today that we get recognition on the grounds that we want to be recognize that we’re able to represent ourselves fairly and in a decent manner. We petition this board today to say that we want to get the rules and regulations re-done and re-set from where they are right now today. I don’t know what you’ve been told. There’s been a newspaper article just written not long ago, said that the police and firemen are more visible than the regular city workers. The problem with that is that city workers are out in the street everyday, all day long. But our firefighters are not seen until there is an accident or unless there is a fire going on, you don’t see them. There was a lie that was printed in the newspaper. The police officers are out there, but they’re not as visible as the city workers. They only respond, and they only move when there is an accident or they are called on a call. They ride around, they’re visible when they’re stopping somebody giving them a ticket for something or another, but yet when you see construction going on, when you see trash picked up, when you see guys out on tractors out working, then what you’re saying in the newspaper, where we got our bad press is that we’re an invisible group of people. People that are non existent. And if this be the case, then when there is a fire, allow that the fire and policemen go down to the Amiss Plant, turn on the water and put out the fire themselves. When you got criminals out there, and people are doing something that they are not supposed to do, and they can’t run through the woods to get them or when the streets are cluttered with all kinds of debris and stuff, allow that the policemen get out and pick it up themselves before chasing somebody. This be the case that why don’t we ask that all city officials in this building, then if we’re not doing the job that we’re supposed and we’re not recognized as such, and we’re such invisible people, unseen by the community, why don’t people in this building, all Administration, City Council and all, why don’t you get out and do the jobs that we do. And then tell us that we are not significant in this community. The problem here is that nobody takes the city workers seriously, and you all take us for granted. We’ve got families, and we’ve got homes. And all we want is to be respected just like anybody else. Now, to say no to the city workers today or whenever you vote, since it was postponed, is to say that you do not respect us. You do not respect the work that we do out there. You do not acknowledge us, and you do not recognize us. To give us a “No” vote. To say that my vote will not reflect how I feel about the city workers, we say we appreciate the job that you are doing, we appreciate everything that you’re doing, but yet my vote don’t reflect that, I’m just going because I want to get along with city officials. I want to get back in office, but yet, I don’t want to cause no ruffles on top, because my boss or my boss’ boss, is not going to like the way that I vote in these Chambers. I’ve had a City Councilman tell me that, that if City Workers were not happy on their jobs, that if the rules and regulations didn’t suit them, they should go out and find another job. I want to say to you today, if you feel like we’re doing such a good job, why don’t you show it in your vote. We are doing the job that a lot of you will never do in your lives. We’re out doing a job that you feel is filthy and nasty, that don’t nobody else want to do. None of you all or nobody in city management will get out and get on a garbage truck.

Councilman Lester: Whoa, whoa, whoa - - - hold up, hold up!

Rev. Allen: And go out and pick up paper, I’m sorry Mr. Lester.

Councilman Lester: Alright, okay, okay.

Rev. Allen: I petitioned each and every member on this Council before when I spoke here that they get out and do the job that we’re doing, even come out on the sites where we work. I’ve even asked you to come out and get on a tractor and operate like I do on my job. Nobody’s come out. Mr. Lester got on a trash truck, and our honorable Mayor come out and filled a few sandbags. And he filled those sandbags when those cameras were out. And I’m not here, and don’t think that I’m here to talk about anybody. What I’m saying is I’m making a fact of something known. If you respect the city workers, like you say you respect the city workers, then let your votes show it. It’s not about money. Please acknowledge this and let this be known. If you read that resolution that we sent up, there is nothing in there about collective bargaining, but there is something about being recognized, that we might represent ourselves. There is nothing in there about money, there is nothing in there to say that we want collective bargaining, that we want to sit down and get an agreement together, and say that all we want to talk about is you giving us more money. Although, there is a lot of city workers that feel that way. But this resolution that is sent up is about rules and regulations and mismanagement within the city. Help us to represent ourselves, to help us do better for ourselves by giving us a “Yes” vote, whenever that vote comes up. I petition your vote today. Thank you.

Mr. William Alexander: (5353 Alto Vista Ave) I’m here to speak in support of you all recognizing the city workers as a union for the simple fact, if you look at my dress, this is the uniform of a city worker, but I’m an ex-city worker, because I’ve taken through the system and been terminated. I appealed it, and it’s been (unclear). For some reason, it won’t be allowed to be taken to the personnel board to be reviewed and appealed. So, my hands are tied. The way I see it, even if you all recognize them and give the recognition of a union, when issues come up such as disciplinary actions, if individuals appeal them, they’re going to go so far and then somebody is going to make their mind up and say, no, we’re not going to give them an appeal. But yet it’s in the City’s rules and regs that we have a procedure to go through, chain of command, so on and so forth and everything. If Mr. Strong is in the Chambers, he himself can tell you. I’ve had to appeal write ups that were given to me in the solid waste department, that when they got to him, he overturned them whereas they never should have been put on paper. For the simple fact, the procedure is verbal warning and then a write up. In other words, what I’m letting the City Council know is they’ve not given me verbal warnings, I’ve just been written up. Now, my belief is because once I started working with the city in the solid waste department, I let it be known that I understood the theory behind a union. I wasn’t asked to be a steward, I volunteered to be a steward. I had co-workers at the solid waste department that would not talk to me even thought they had issues with management. We had four stewards over at the solid waste department. They got rid of me, our chief steward, they gave him a promotion, he’s a supervisor now. They broke down the stewardship in the solid waste department. Upper management won’t help the workers. To pass this, that’s one thing. There’s got to be policing behind it. Just because somebody gets wrote up or gets suspended or whatever, if they appeal it, if it doesn’t go to the right person to be heard, and they’re treated fairly because they refer to PDC, Pre-disciplinary Conference. Everybody refers to that in the solid waste department as Kangaroo Court. Because we come down here and go upstairs, the city’s got all these people there on their side. They’ve got a City Attorney here. Up until I think it was August 11, 2004, we didn’t have the right to someone there to even speak for us or sit in witness or whatever. But August 11, 2004, we did. But guess what. That still didn’t accomplish anything. That’s just an extra body in there that hears is, agrees or disagrees and that panel makes their decision. If you appeal it, you don’t get your appeal, at least I didn’t. My situation even went to you all as well as the Mayor to look into it. Because prior to me being taken to PDC on November 18^th, I had complaints and what not. Fired. They told me, (unclear) all it done was put on hold. But then up jumped my PDC. And now that I’ve been terminated, all of my grievances and complaints that were already on file, that’s dead paper. But they’re legitimate complaints now, because I am no longer a city employee, aren’t going to be heard. That’s all I have to say.

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. 32 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS RECEIVED ON IFB #05-102, NEW FIRE MAINTENANCE FACILITY MAINTENCE SHOP FACILITY, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY:

WHEREAS, three (3) bids were received as a result of solicitations for the New Fire Maintenance , IFB #05-102; and;

WHEREAS, the City has rejected these bids because they were all over budget;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the bids received on IFB #05-102 be rejected.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION

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

The Clerk read the following:

1. Resolution No. 28 of 2006: A resolution to recognize USW/PACE International Union and USW/PACE Local 13-25 as the exclusive representative agent for the City Employees and for the purpose stated herein, providing relative to resolution of employee issues and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)(Postponed February 28, 2006)

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Robertson to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 5. Nays: Councilman Carmody. 1.. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 30 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DONATION OF SHREVEPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

BY:

WHEREAS, the City desires to donate Shreveport Police Department Mounted Patrol horse “Quest” to Johann A. Cook which serves a public purpose and renders a public service; and,

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

WHEREAS, Johann A. Cook has agreed to accept all responsibility, financial obligations and liability associated with the acceptance of this donation; and,

WHEREAS, due to instability and failure to complete annual certification tests, the horse described herein is unable to perform his duties as a mounted patrol horse for the Shreveport Police Department and is hereby deemed surplus of the City of Shreveport; and,

WHEREAS, this donation under these circumstances provides for the most humane and dignified way to retire the animal.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due regular and legal session convened, that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Shreveport and Johann A. Cook donating Shreveport Police Department Mounted Patrol horse “Quest”.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

RESOLUTION NO. 35 of 2006

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR PROVENANCE PLACE, CHESTNUT PARK LANE, AND BRIDGEWATER AVENUE IN THE PROVENANCE COMMERCIAL AREA BLOCK “A”, 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 Provenance Place, Chestnut Park Lane, and Bridgewater Avenue in The Provenance Commercial Area Block “A” in Section 20 (T16N-R13W), 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 Provenance Place, Chestnut Park Lane, and Bridgewater Avenue 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 Robertson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt.

Councilman Hogan: As I spoke of yesterday in the Work Session, I wanted there to be, of course I’ve had an opinion from two attorneys, one our City Attorney present with us today about whether or not I should vote on this or not, and she says there’s no indication that I should not be able to able to vote. But because of what I do for a living, I’m in real estate, and I have purchased a lot in this subdivision, even though the commercial development plat is up for approval, I don’t want there to be any appearance of impropriety, so I’m going to recuse my self from voting today. I’ll just step out for a moment. Thank you.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, and Green. 5. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Hogan. 1.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS (Not to be adopted prior March 28, 2006)

1. Resolution No. 33 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to dedicate Anniston Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and Patton Avenue in Honor of Pope John Paul II and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/Carmody)

2. Resolution No. 34 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a re-instatement agreement with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development concerning Broadmoor area “Youree Drive” flood control improvements, and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (C/Carmody)

3. Resolution No. 36 of 2006: A Resolution authorizing the donation of the use of choral risers to allow the Southern University Office of Student Activities to present Judi Ann Mason’s play “Resurrection” and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Green to introduce Resolution Nos. 33, 34, and 36 of 2006 to lay over until March 28, 2006 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (Not be adopted prior to March 28, 2006)

1. Ordinance No. 24 of 2006: An ordinance amending the 2006 Budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 25 of 2006: ZONING C-10-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport zoning ordinance by re-zoning property located on the southwest corner of Fairfield Avenue and Boulevard, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from SPI-1-E, Highland Urban Conservation/Expanded Use District, Limited to “A Sleep Disorder Clinic as Presented.” To SPI-1, Highland Urban Conservation District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford)

3. Ordinance No. 26 of 2006: ZONING C-11-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport zoning ordinance by re-zoning property located on the southeast corner of Archer Avenue and East Kings Highway, Shreveport, Caddo Parish Louisiana, from B-1, Buffer Business District, to B-1-# Buffer Business/Extended Use District, LIMITED TO “A SPA, SALON, AND BOUTIQUE”, ONLY, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/Carmody)

4. Ordinance No. 27 of 2006: ZONING C-13-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport zoning ordinance by re-zoning property located on the southwest corner of Hearne Avenue and west corner of College Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-2, Suburban Multi-Family Residence District, to R-2-E, Suburban, Multiple-Family Residence/Extended use District, LIMITED TO “A FLOWER SHOP” ONLY, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (G/Jackson)

5. Ordinance No. 28 of 2006: An Ordinance authorizing the sale of real property in Shepherd Place Subdivision and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Not be adopted prior to April 11, 2006)

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to introduce Ordinance Nos. 24, 25, 26, and 27 of 2006 to lay over until March 28, 2006 meeting, and Ordinance No. 28 of 2006 to lay over until April 11, 2006. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE (Numbers are assigned Ordinance Numbers)

1. Ordinance No. 18 of 2006: An ordinance authorizing the lease of City-owned property to Paxton Youth Boxing Club, Inc., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Decision rendered under Awards, Recognition of Distinguished Guests and Communications of the Mayor which are required by law).

2. Ordinance No. 21 of 2006: An ordinance amending and reenacting Section 74, the Solid Waste Code, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on February 28, 2006 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, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

3. Ordinance No. 22 of 2006: An ordinance amending the 2006 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto..

Having passed first reading on February 28, 2006 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, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

4. Ordinance No. 23 of 2006: An ordinance changing the name of the Civic Theater to the “RiverView Theater” and changing the name of the Convention Hall to the “RiverView Hall” and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford)

Having passed first reading on February 28, 2006 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 to adopt.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, you want to have a brief discussion?

Councilman Lester: Sure.

Councilman Walford: This really came about when the SPAR Director and I met with different folks. And Expo Hall was no longer available, and each time we’d recommend Convention Hall, it seemed there was confusion thinking Convention Center.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Walford: Turns out these buildings have never officially named and with our Riverview Park, I suggested it would be a nice compliment to the area, so I recommend that for both. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Thompson, did they get - - - did the Secretary of State get my trade name application before the vote?

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

5. Ordinance No. 208 of 2006: ZONING – C-89-05: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the northwest corner of West 63^rd and Linwood Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District, to B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (F/Green)(Postponed – February 28, 2006)

Having passed first reading on November 29, 2005 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 Robertson to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

6. Ordinance No. 19 of 2006: ZONING: C-04-06: An Ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, The City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the northerly side of Dee Street at its intersection with South Pointe Parkway, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-3, Urban, Multiple-Family Residence District to B-3, Community Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/Carmody) (Postponed – February 28, 2006)

Having passed first reading on February 14, 2006 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 Walford to adopt.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Council Members, as you recalled, I’d asked to speak to the owners of this property to ask them about their application to rezone the property from R-3, Urban Multi-Family Residential to B-3, Commercial Business District. Having noted that there was no site plan attached for the development on that property, and those of you that are familiar with this piece of property, it’s actually located in very close proximity to the Clyde Fant Parkway. And this morning, the owner had said that basically they did not have a use for the property to B-3, but they felt comfortable in making the application and that they would be sensitive to the Clyde Fant Parkway with anything that they would put there. As I had mentioned to the owner, that verbal assurance between two persons was certainly nice, but that should the City Council vote to rezone the property to B-3, that should he convey the property to another party, he’d be under no obligation to have that sensitivity. So, I would go ahead and ask y’all to vote on this matter. I will vote “No” to rezone it. I think that it would be difficult in that B-3 allows the widest range of commercial uses in that area without knowing what is being proposed there to grant it. Some of these uses might be warehouses, which again we all need warehouses, but the appropriate place to put a warehouse may not be next to the Clyde Fant Parkway. Automotive repair is also something that would be allowed as use by right for B-3. But is that the appropriate place for that type of use? Without having some sort of confirmation of what the use would be, I don’t feel comfortable in supporting the rezoning.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. That answered all my questions what he just said.

Councilman Walford: I’m - - - this one, I guess I don’t understand that. It abuts B-3 on two sides, the parkway on the other side, and B-2 on half of one side, and got an 8-0 vote by the Metropolitan Planning Commission, and if I read this correctly, there was no opposition at the Planning Commission meeting. The MPC decision citing that the request appears to be compatible with the surrounding area, the board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the application and submitted and I can’t find it that anyone spoke in opposition to it. So, if we could either ask Mr. Kirkland. Mr. Kirkland? Can you help us out? You even have one of those MPC members sitting there with you.

Mr. Kirkland: Sure do. I’m sure he would address this if you’d let him.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Kirkland, would you kinda help me out here?

Mr. Kirkland: Actually not withstanding Councilman Carmody’s concerns, the Planning Commission is very comfortable with approving speculative zoning when it appears appropriate because of one very important consideration. That’s that site plan that has to be approved by the Board, in a public session. And that’s when based on the proposals specifically permitted, to either screening, or buffering or fencing or whatever is required, that requirement has served this city extremely well over the years since we’ve had that. We’ve not only had that requirement, but I personally think that’s why the board didn’t have any hesitancy in taking the property back to B-3 which it had once been.

Councilman Walford: So, you’re basically telling us there is still a check out there against an unfavorable development?

Mr. Kirkland: Absolutely and in fact, (unclear) B-3, and I’ll give you an example. The (unclear) and Councilman Carmody and I talked about it, down at Stoner and the Parkway, there was a lot of concern by a lot of folks about the visibility of that development, no matter how well financed it was or how attractive it might be, but the board, when the site plan was presented, required extensive buffers to address the very concerns that Councilman Carmody is voicing, and Mr. (unclear) and I talked this morning, and I reminded him again something he already knew, is that priority in any development whether it’s by them or some other group, they will have to go through that process and if there are any citizens who don’t like what the MPC does, it comes to you. And so as you may recall, Councilman Stewart, on the Albertson’s transaction over at King’s Hwy and Barrett Street. He even said on that one that the site plan had to come to the City Council. And so, that process works is my only recommendation to you, so I’m reasonably sure that’s why the MPC was unanimous in their recommendation.

Councilman Walford: Okay, well again Mr. Chairman, I’m usually extremely reluctant to overturn the MPC, and so for that reason I will be voting yes on this. Certainly not a vote against Mr. Carmody, I just - - - I feel comfortable with it.

Councilwoman Robertson: I would also reiterate what Mr. Walford said. I will be voting in favor of this only because it was a B-3 prior. That change nothing was ever developed on it, it’s going back to B-3 and I think if they are going to be going to MPC for the site plan, then we may be able to stop something there too!

Councilman Lester: I have a question for Councilman Carmody. Councilman Carmody, (unclear).

Councilman Carmody: (unclear) the developer, the owner.

Councilman Lester: The owner? Okay, and you expressed some hesitancy with moving forward because they did not have a site plan?

Councilman Carmody: Yes.

Councilman Lester: And he indicated that he didn’t have one, and none was forthcoming?

Councilman Carmody: Right now.

Councilman Lester: Right now. And but he said that he would be sensitive to - - - okay. That answers my question. I just think - - - I understand what has been articulated by Mr. Kirkland as well as what has been articulated by both Councilman Walford and Councilwoman Robertson. The concern that I have and you know we have to make decisions with our best judgement, and many times, I say to myself where would I be if this was in my district? And if this was in my district, I would feel exactly the way that Councilman Carmody does. If you have an owner of a particular piece of property that is asking for their properties to be rezoned, and the Councilman whose responsibility is to see what’s going on and to be an advocate for the people in that area, ask you a simple request to give me a plan, and you say, I don’t have one, but trust me, and we both know that if they turn around and sell it tomorrow, that any agreement that you have is gone, and what you have done is you have at that point conveyed a property right, that if you take away that right, now you’ve got a higher level of expectation constitutionally because now, you’re not talking about a rezoning, now you’re talking about a taking. And I just cannot see, and I appreciate the due diligence, it has nothing to do with the MPC, but when it comes to the Council, I could not in good conscious vote to rezone a piece of property when I have absolutely no idea of what they’re going to put there, and the owner says he doesn’t know either, just trust me. Thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson: I have another question, if I can ask this and Mr. Kirkland may have to do it, but if there were to not to pass with us, then it could be appealed,. Is that right? No?

Mr. Kirkland: In other words if the vote is to overturn the MPC and deny the request?

Councilwoman Robertson: Right.

Mr. Kirkland: What that would mean is that the applicant would have to wait. Well they could go to court within 30 days and challenge your decision if they chose that path, they could also wait one year and re-file for the B-3. They could also re-file for B-2 tomorrow, or some other zoning class that’s less than the B-3.

Motion failed by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, and Hogan. 3. Ayes: Councilmen Walford, Robertson, and Green. 3. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

The adopted ordinances and amendments follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 18 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO PAXTON YOUTH BOXING CLUB, INC., AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: Councilman Walford

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport ("City") is the owner of certain property located at 2636 Fulton Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana; and

WHEREAS, for the past 30 years, the property has been the home of Paxton’s Youth Boxing Club, Inc., a 501 (c)(3) non-profit corporation; and

WHEREAS, Paxton’s has maintained and repaired the property at its cost for the past thirty (30) years thereby relieving City of the responsibility and cost for doing so; and WHEREAS, the primary goal of the boxing club is to promote self-esteem, respect for others, and good moral conduct among young amateur boxers. Young athletes trained at this facility have competed on the local, national, international, and Olympic levels; and

WHEREAS, the City has received a request from Paxton’s to enter into a formal written lease of the property in order to continue their current operations at this location; and

WHEREAS, the property is not needed by the City for a public purpose; and

WHEREAS, the lease of this property is in accordance with the provisions of LSA-R.S. 33:4712.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the City of Shreveport is authorized to lease the City-owned property located at 2636 Fulton Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana to Paxton Youth Boxing Club, Inc., for the sum of $1.00 annually plus other valuable consideration as provided in the Lease Agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Shreveport, the attached Lease Agreement and any and all documents relative to the authority granted herein, provided such documents are substantially in accord with the draft hereof filed for public inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Council on February 14, 2006.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that a certified copy of the lease authorized herein and all Exhibits attached thereto, or an extract thereof, shall be filed and recorded in the conveyance records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 21 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 74, SOLID WASTE CODE, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY:

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular, and legal session convened that Section 74 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Shreveport pertaining to the Solid Waste Code is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:

Article III. Regulations

Sec. 74-58 - Comprehensive Solid Waste Board of Appeals

(a) There shall be a Comprehensive Solid Waste Board of Appeals. All board members, other than the Director of Operational Services, shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The appointed members of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Board of Appeals shall serve at the discretion of the Mayor.

(1) The Comprehensive Solid Waste Board of Appeals will serve to hear appeals of rulings issued in regard to violations of any rule established by Section 74.

(2) Members of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Board of Appeals will be one (1) individual who is considered technically proficient in the area of environmental regulations, one (1) engineer with a proven background in the field of solid waste, one (1) person with proven experience in the solid waste industry, one (1) registered voter, and the Director of the Department of Operational Services who shall serve as Chairman.

(b) The Comprehensive Solid Waste Board of Appeals shall have the right to request the presence of any witness they deem necessary. Any person or corporation required to appear before the board shall have the right to request the presence of any witness they deem necessary. Either party requesting witnesses must put such requests in writing to the Superintendent of Solid Waste, 1731 Kings Hwy., Shreveport, Louisiana, 71103, providing the name, address, and telephone number of each witness they are requesting at least fifteen (15) working days prior to the date of the scheduled meeting. The Superintendent of Solid Waste will be responsible for notifying, by certified mail, return receipt requested, all witnesses identified of the date, time, and place of the meeting at least ten (10) working days prior to the meeting.

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. 22 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By:

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2006 Capital Improvements Budget to increase project funding and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 166 of 2005, the 2006 Capital Improvements Budget, be further amended and re-enacted as follows:

In Program D (Drainage Improvements):

Increase the appropriation for Missouri/Andrew Drainage, Phases II and III (00-D002) by $413,000. Funding source is 2003 GOB.

In Program F (Sewer Improvements):

Establish a project entitled Cross Lake Watershed Sewer Improvements (06-F001) and fund it at $192,000. Funding source is EPA grant.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance 166 of 2005, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 23 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NAME OF THE CIVIC THEATER TO THE "RIVERVIEW THEATER" AND CHANGING THE NAME OF THE CONVENTION HALL TO THE “RIVERVIEW HALL” AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

By: Councilman Walford

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has recently completed the construction of a new Convention Center located at 400 Caddo St.; and

WHEREAS, in order to distinguish the new building from older civic buildings on the city’s riverfront, the City Council wishes to change the names of two of those buildings; and

WHEREAS, the names “Civic Theater” and “Convention Hall” are not historically significant, and were simply descriptive of the nature of the buildings; and

WHEREAS, there is now some danger of confusion between the older buildings and the new Convention Center due to the similarity of the names; therefore the Council finds it is in the public interest to waive the provisions of Sections 78-451 and 78-452 of the Code of Ordinances for the purposes of this ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the name of the Civic Theater is hereby changed to the "RiverView Theater", and the name of the Convention Hall is hereby changed to the “RiverView Hall.”

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that for the reasons stated in the Whereas clauses above, the provisions of Section 78-451 and 452 are hereby waived for the purposes of this ordinance only.

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

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

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Ordinance No. 93 of 2005: To amend and reenact Section 3.01 of Ordinance No. 96 of 1980 relative to exemptions and exclusions from sales and use taxes and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Introduced – June 14, 2005 - Tabled on July 12, 2005)

2. Ordinance No. 220 of 2005 - ZONING APPEAL – C-95-05: Amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, to rezone property located on the Southwest corner of Cleveland and Jewella Avenues, from R-1D, Urban One-Family Residence District to B-3, Community Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (F/Green)(Introduced – Dec 27, 2005 – Tabled January 10, 2006)

Mr. Thompson: There was no indication yesterday that either one of these items would be removed from the table today.

Councilman Lester: Alright. Thank you sir. That takes us to Item 11.

NEW BUSINESS:

C-9-06: To approve the application by Sheriff Steve Prator to construct a correctional facility in an I-2 district located in the 1100 block of Forum Drive. (Section 106-839 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport require MPC approval and City Council approval when the proposed use is in the city). (A/Lester)

Mr. Kirkland: I might note that Mr. Parker is here in civilian clothes. He’s behind the post back here.

Councilman Lester: Ah! Okay. Undercover.

Mr. Kirkland: We’d be happy to report to you briefly, the Sheriff applied for additional property adjacent to the existing jail correctional facility. The primary purpose, it will be for a corrections use, which does require MPC approval, and your approval in order to be allowed there. His prime purpose is to have a work release facility at that location. And that’s primarily as he has explained to the MPC, taking prisoners out of the existing facility and literally moving them over to a program as I’m sure most of you are familiar with., is extremely successful in reintegrating folks back into our society and in a productive way, so the Board certainly supports that, and we would urge you to approve it as well. I want you to be sure that you understand though the use requested is for a corrections facility. If for some reason in the future, the Sheriff would want to make some of the spaces additional jail cells, he could do that under this approval. In other questions?

Councilman Lester: I don’t have any questions.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Kirkland, Mr. Lester - - - Forum Drive, can you fill me in on the location?

Councilman Lester: Right off N. Hearne and N. Market. North Hearne/North Market corridor?

Councilman Hogan: Okay.

Councilman Lester: It’s right in front of 12 Mile Bayou.

Mr. Kirkland: Right, the levy system runs to the west of the jail, and you probably have seen the (unclear) system that’s out there. This would be go right down the street, and where it dead ends, it would continue on, and this would be adjacent to that. It’s a site that’s actually more publicly removed from visibility and then the existing site that Councilman Lester is certainly familiar with. Any other questions?

Councilman Walford: I was just going to clarify, right behind the existing jail.

Councilman Lester: It’s the street’s dead end. It’s basically woods back there now.

Councilwoman Robertson: I mentioned this yesterday, but I was at the MPC hearing when Sheriff Prator gave his spill on it. And it’s really what I kinda fashioned as what he’s trying to do is like a type of a work release program for his people, to let them get back into society, that might still be on a lockdown per se coming in and he really seems to have thought it out and has worked with a group already. He just wants another place to be able to put these people, and kinda separate ‘em. Thank you.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Hogan to uphold the decision of the MPC. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, do you want the record to reflect that you voted for this in spite of the fact that Mr. Parker was here?

Councilman Lester: Yes. Right, right. Make that clear.

Property Standards Appeal:

Case #HBO 0600018, 2941 Abie Street, Mr. Huey Speed, 8032 Aaron Place, Shreveport, LA (A/Lester/G/Jackson) Decision rendered March 13, 2006.

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES: None.

CLERK’S REPORT: None

THE COMMITTEE RISES AND REPORTS: (Reconvenes Regular Council Meeting)

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion to reconsider Ordinance 19, C-04-06.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Robertson to reconsider Ordinance No. 19 of 2006..

Councilman Green: In order to reconsider, does the rule say you have to be on the prevailing side? So, there was no prevailing side.

Councilman Carmody: 3-3.

Ms. Glass: It failed to pass, so the no vote would be the prevailing side.

Councilman Lester: Good catch. Alright.

Councilman Green: What makes the “No Vote” the prevailing side?

Ms. Glass: Because if you do not have a majority vote, then it does not pass.

Councilman Lester: Right. It wasn’t in the majority, but they won. Kinda like the Presidential Election. Does this require a two-thirds vote?

Ms. Glass: No, it does not.

Councilman Hogan: Question. Could you clarify what the purpose is?

Councilman Carmody: To reconsider the Ordinance 19. This was the re-zoning matter in District C. Yes, the owner has asked us to take another action. And so if we could reconsider?

Councilman Hogan: What’s your recommendation?

Councilman Lester: First, we have to bring it - - -

Councilman Carmody: My recommendation is we go ahead and bring it up to reconsider.

Councilman Lester: Right, we have to bring it up first.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Mr. Chairman, having spoken to the owner of the property, he has asked that we consider remanding this matter back to the Metropolitan Planning Commission for a B-2-E zoning. If I could get the support of the Council Members, that would allow him to go ahead and proceed with his plan to try to get the commercial zoning for the property, and he could get on the April 5^th, MPC Agenda. And I told him that I would be glad to do that and therefore I’m offering that as a motion.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Green to remand Ordinance to MPC.

Councilman Walford: Question. I don’t know if this is for Ms. Glass or Mr. Kirkland, but is there no way that the Council can do this? Can grant the B-2-E? Does it have to go back to the MPC, there’s no - - -

Mr. Kirkland: It does have to go back.

Councilman Walford: Nothing we can do? Okay.

Councilwoman Robertson: So, we’re just voting for it to come off our agenda and go back - - -?

Councilman Lester: To go back to MPC for further consideration and further action, or whatever action the MPC is going to take.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Absent: Councilman Jackson. 1.

Motion by Councilman Walford to adjourn.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:27 p.m.

___________________________________

//s// Calvin Ben Lester, Jr., Chairman

____________________________________

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