COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

MARCH 28, 2006

(AS AMENDED ON APRIL 11, 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 3:00p.m., Tuesday, March 28, 2006, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Green.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Robertson.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan and Jackson. 7.

Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Walford to approve the minutes of the Administrative Conference, Monday March 27, 2006 and Council Meeting, Tuesday, March 28, 2006. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, and Hogan. 6. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Jackson. 1.

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

Councilman Lester: Mr. Mayor, good afternoon. Do you have any communications or distinguished guests sir?

Mayor Hightower: Nothing today Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: Alright. Does any Council Member have any distinguished guests or communications?

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I do in fact have some distinguished guests who have not yet arrived, however, we have a resolution for those individuals, so I would ask the Council’s indulgence with respect to time, so that whenever they arrive that we could at that particular period of time, perhaps if necessary suspend the rules to take that up at that particular point and time.

Councilman Lester: Well, I have a matter that we can take up now. A resolution that we can take up now, and add something to that. Does any other Council Person have any distinguished guests?

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Chairman, I also will have some distinguished guests that will be arriving here momentarily, and I will also join at the same time that Councilman Jackson recognizes his folks.

Councilman Lester: Okay, thank you Councilman Hogan. That takes us down to some resolutions. Mr. Chairman -- that’s me, I’m sorry. Force of habit. Mr. Thompson, would it be fit for us take No. 38 out of order, given No. 31 and 37 as requested by those respective Councilmen to postpone those?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, if there are no objections.

Councilman Lester: Alright. The Chair would make a motion for Resolution No. 38.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt Resolution No. 38 of 2006. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

Councilman Lester: Ms. Daniel, could you come forward? And Ms. Hudson, could you come forward please? Right at the podium please. Thank you. Good afternoon. We’d like to read this resolution.

Councilman Lester read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 38 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION TO DECLARE APRIL 10, 2006 “MRS. ROSETTA L. HENDERSON DAY” IN SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, IN CELEBRATION OF HER 100^TH BIRTHDAY, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

By: Councilman Calvin Lester

WHEREAS, Mrs. Rosetta L. Henderson was born in Shreveport, Louisiana on April 10, 1906, to Charles L. Lewis and Lydia Lampkin Lewis; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Henderson was married to the late William Henderson, and had two children Ralph Wilson and Kathryn Henderson Handley, which are both deceased; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Henderson obtained a Bachelor of Science degree from Wiley College, and she completed Graduate studies at the University of California in Los Angeles; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Henderson taught English and Social Studies at J. S. Clark Junior High School where she retired from teaching in 1962; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Henderson has been a loyal member of the Antioch Baptist Church since 1944, where she has been actively involved in a number of activities including Sunday School, the Missionary Society, and Vacation Bible School; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Henderson was a member of the Louisiana Association of Educators and the Louisiana Retired Teachers Association; and

WHEREAS, Mrs. Henderson has been be a model citizen of the City of Shreveport for 100 years.

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 declares April 10, 2006 “Mrs. Rosetta L. Henderson Day” because of her many valuable contributions to this community, and in celebration of her 100th birthday.

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

Councilman Lester: This is the resolution that was just passed on behalf of Mrs. Henderson, who could not be with us today, but is watching on television. With us, we have Mrs. Lillian Bailey Daniel, who is her niece, and family friend, Mrs. Hudson. So, we’d like to give her warm round of applause in her absence, and we would like to wish her a Happy 100^th Birthday on April 10^th, and we will give that at this time, (inaudible) I will present that to you. If you would like to make any comments at this time, the microphone is yours.

Ms. Daniel: I just would like to thank you on behalf of my aunt. She is so excited about this honor, and being a long time citizen of this City, she’s is just honored that something is coming to her from the Mayor, and the City Council. So, thank you very much.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, and I guess Ms. Daniel probably,--well, let me say good afternoon to Mrs. Velma and Ms. Daniel. I read here she had a son whose name was Ralph Wilson. This wouldn’t be the same Ralph Wilson who was in education and--alright, alright. I know a gentleman in Lake Charles years ago whose name was Ralph Wilson.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, before you leave, you might want to get a picture right there with those ladies. That gentleman is trying to get your attention.

Reports:

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

Councilman Lester: Oh, okay. I’m sorry. That takes us down to reports. On yesterday, we had the Convention Center, and Convention Center Hotel Report. Are there any questions on the Convention Center, and Convention Center Hotel report by any member? Okay.

Property Standards Report

Councilman Lester: And on yesterday, we also had the Property Standards Report, are there any questions for Mr. Bowie on Property Standards today by any member?

Councilwoman Robertson: Mr. Bowie, I just, I (inaudible) last night, y’all had emailed me back and had changed up some of the lot numbers, and I did email y’all back,. I did talk to Mr. Richardson, and y’all had the correct information, so I guess that y’all can check from there to see if anything had ever been cleared up?

Mr. Bowie: It’s been cleared up. We’ll put something out in writing later on this week.

Councilwoman Robertson: It was cleared up?

Mr. Bowie: Yes it was.

Councilwoman Robertson: Okay, great. Thank you.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Bowie, how are you this afternoon?

Mr. Bowie: Fine and you sir?

Councilman Carmody: I’m well, thank you. I just wanted to go over very quickly. It appears that the two inspectors, Code Enforcement Inspectors, seem to be working the 69^th Street to 71^st Street area of District C. And I don’t see any other areas of the district as far as violations. I’m praying that, that means, we don’t have any other outside of that three block area?

Mr. Bowie: I’ll be checking into that Councilman, and I’ll have a report for you next Council Meeting.

Councilman Carmody: Could you do that for me? Because I did not know if maybe --

Mr. Bowie: No, let me check into that.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Bowie, I’ve got one, I hate to bring up. I think we talked about it about two months ago, but I’m getting recurring complaints again, and I think Mr. Carmody has gotten them before, about inspectors not returning phone calls.

Mr. Bowie: Okay.

Councilman Walford: Can you just please let them know how important it is to return the calls to these people who have a complaint or issues?

Mr. Bowie: I do Councilman, and we talk about that every staff meeting, sometimes individuals want to be kept abreast of every step they make, but --

Councilman Walford: Well, I understand that sometimes it can go too far, but usually, by the time it comes to us, they’re frustrated. And it seems to run in cycles, and now, we’re on a cycle of --

Mr. Bowie: Not returning --. Let me check and see.

Councilman Lester: Alright, we’re going to go back, just a little bit. As our distinguished guests have arrived, and have instantly transferred our -- transformed our Chamber to the Hall of Champions. We’re going to go back for a minute. Mr. Mayor, you have a communication about a very important event on April 1^st.

Mayor Hightower: Thank you Mr. .Chairman. I did want to remind everyone that election day is Saturday, and that election is certainly important not only to our Police and Fire Personnel, but it’s certainly important to their families, it’s important to everyone that’s a taxpayer in the City of Shreveport to be sure that we continue to promote and support these public services, the way that we ought to, the way that we have over the past several years. Just a reminder it’s tax renewal, it doesn’t increase your taxes one bit. It’s funded through the sales tax that is largely paid for by visitors that come to our City. So all that money doesn’t come out of the local’s pockets, but again, it’s a renewal, it does not increase the sales tax levy at all. So, I would just encourage everyone to remember to go out and support the fire and police this coming Saturday, April 1^st. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Mayor. At this point, we’re going to go to our Resolutions and I believe Councilman Hogan has Resolution No. 31.

Councilman Hogan: That’s right. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And welcome to the meeting Girls and Ladies and Gentlemen, the Fair Park gentlemen also as well as the Southwood Ladies have arrived. And I have Resolution No. 31 of 2006 by the Shreveport City Council.

Councilman Hogan read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 31 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE SOUTHWOOD HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE LOUISIANA CLASS 5A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: COUNCILMAN JEFF HOGAN

WHEREAS, the Southwood High School Girls Basketball Team won the Louisiana Class 5A State Championship on Saturday, March 4, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the Southwood High School Girls Basketball Team has won nine 5A State Championships in the last twelve years, with the last two championships being back to back; and

WHEREAS, the Southwood High School Girls Basketball Team finished the season with a 39 - 6 winning record; and

WHEREAS, while the Southwood High School Girls Basketball team has many outstanding players, all of whom made important contributions to the team=s success, the following players received awards for their contributions during the 2005 - 2006 season:

Zevelynn Ivory

5A Most Valuable Player, 5A All District Team, All State Team

Shawnette Jenkins

5ADistrict Team

Lacanjala Latin

Honorable Mention 5A All District Team

Porsha Black

Honorable Mention 5A All District Team

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the City Council congratulates the Southwood High School Girls Basketball Team along with Head Coach Steve McDowell and Assistant Coaches James Cummings and Allen Matthews for winning the Louisiana Class 5A Basketball State Championship and for the many other successes the team has enjoyed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council wishes the Southwood High School Girls Basketball Team the best of luck and every success in their future endeavors.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be executed in duplicate originals and one original shall be presented to Southwood High School Head Coach Steve McDowell and an original shall be filed in perpetuity in the Office of the Clerk of Council for the City of Shreveport.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to have our Coaches come down, Coach McDowell, and the Assistant Coaches as well, come down to the front for a moment.

Councilman Lester: And we’d also ask the team if the team if the team would stand and kinda assemble so that all our fine folks in TV Land can see what great young people you are.

Councilman Hogan: Coach McDowell, I’d like to congratulate you personally, and this is a long time coming, because I want you to forgive me for last year, I got busy with some things. I wanted everyone to know that y’all won this last year and you’ve won it nine out of the past eleven or twelve years?

Coach McDowell: 12 years.

Councilman Hogan: Nine out of the past 12 years. That is quite an accomplishment. And I’d like to say congratulations to all of you. I’m proud of you. And also, I’m a graduate of Southwood from many years ago, myself. So that makes me even more proud.

Mayor Hightower: That school is getting better.

Councilman Hogan: Coach McDowell, I’d like to give you the floor if you have some comments for just a moment.

McDowell: Well, we appreciate you having us here, and thank you. We appreciate the honor, and it’s a great group of young ladies, we’re very proud of. They represented Southwood, and Shreveport in a very fine manner. So thank you very much.

Councilman Hogan: Assistant Coaches, do you have anything to say?

Asst Coach: This is my first year to be able to assist Coach Cummings and Coach McDowell. This is a wonderful, wonderful group of girls. Their personalities, their academics, they’re leaders in their school, and I was just very proud to be affiliated with them and I’m very proud for them and Southwood, and the City of Shreveport. Thank y’all.

Councilman Lester: Councilman Jackson has Resolution No. 37.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, and to Council, I’d like to offer a motion that we adopt Resolution No. 37.

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, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

Councilman Jackson read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 37 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE FAIR PARK INDIANS FOR WINNING THE CLASS 3A LOUISIANA STATE BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: COUNCILMAN THERON JACKSON

WHEREAS, the Fair Park High School Indians won the Class 3A Louisiana State Basketball Championship, on March 11, 2006, with a 61 – 48 victory over Wossman; and

WHEREAS, the Fair Park Indians finished the season with a 32 - 4 winning record, and were undefeated in the district with a 10 - 0 record; and

WHEREAS, Coach Ronald Preston coached the Fair Park Boys Basketball Team to its first championship since 1963; and

WHEREAS, while the Fair Park Basketball team has many outstanding players, all of whom made important contributions to the team=s success, the following players excelled individually in the 2005 - 2006 season:

Eric Tramiel

McDonald’s All-American Nominee, Class 3A Top 28 Most Valuable Player,

3A District Most Valuable Player, Team Co-Captain,

Team Rebound Leader and Second Leading Scorer

Gene Baker

McDonald’s All-American Nominee,

2^ndAll – District Team, Team Co-Captain and Leader in Assists

Derrick Berry

1^st All – District Team and Team Leading Scorer

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the City Council congratulates the Fair Park Indians along with Coach Ronald Preston for winning the Class 3A Louisiana State Basketball championship, for its undefeated record in district play, and for the many other successes the team has enjoyed in the 2005 - 2006 season.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be executed in duplicate originals and one original shall be presented to Fair Park High School Head Coach Ronald Preston and an original shall be filed in perpetuity in the Office of the Clerk of Council for the City of Shreveport.

Councilman Jackson: This is signed by our Chairman, and the rest of we City Councilmen. And would just like to say again, collectively to Coach Preston and all the Fair Park Indians Champions, 3A Class Champions, congratulations. Again, we’d like to invite the rest of the team up, if you would. And Coach Preston, if you would, come to the mic. On behalf of the Shreveport City Council, we just want to present this to you as a token of our appreciation, not only for the success that you all have had on the court, but for the impression that you’ve made on these young men who we know do more than just play basketball and who will affect the quality of life in Shreveport, so thank you so much for what you all have done. The Principal is also here from Fair Park as well. And Coach Preston, if you have anything you’d like to say, we want to give you this time.

Coach Preston: I’d just like to thank you for this honor and just a word about the team. We have a saying around the school that hard work pays off. We’ve been close. You know we’ve been to the top 28 several other times, but it finally paid off for us this time. And this has been a tremendous experience for the guys and I think they’re still excited about it. So, again thank you.

Principal Daigle: We’d like to thank the Council and the Mayor for having our young men here today, the Coaches and the team really put in a good effort, and like you said, the work paid off, and the excitement around the school has been elevated, the pride in the school, and we appreciate you inviting us here today to be honored. Thank you.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. Everyone is on their way out, but a few minutes ago, I turned to Councilman Jackson, and I told him about the challenge I had. I heard Mr. Carmody, say as well -- but I’d put my Southwood Girls up against the Fair Park Boys for a challenge game, how about that huh?

Councilman Jackson: I told Councilman Hogan, we wouldn’t do it like that.

Councilman Hogan: Work that out Coach, alright?

Councilman Jackson: We wouldn’t do that to ‘em Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: And again, I’d just like to thank those young men and women and their parents. Many times, when we see our young people portrayed in the media, they are portrayed as suspects, convicts, and everything negative under the sun, but these are young men and women who worked hard for a common goal, they worked with their coaches, they worked with their schools, and it just lets you know that there’s not all negative things going on in our neighborhoods, and they’re not all negative things going on in our schools, and there not all bad things going on with our children. And I think that’s -- if there are any parents here, please accept our congratulations, because we know that this is a culmination of a lot of hard work for the parents as well taking them to the camps and everything like that. So we just want to say thank you for representing yourselves and you city extremely well. We’re very, very proud of you.

Councilman Lester: Alright, that brings us to the State of the Municipality Infrastructure Report, is Mr. Strong available?

State of the Municipal Infrastructure Report

Councilman Lester: Good afternoon Mr. Strong.

Mr. Strong: How are you ? Are you going to present me with an honor for - -?

Councilman Lester: For shortest presentation? Mr. Strong, good afternoon, the floor is yours.

Mr. Strong: Thank you. What this is, and we appreciate having an opportunity to present our end of the year report, that each of the Council has received in early February. And that has been on our web page, that we’ve put out, that is public information. One thing that when you get into this, to understand is how far have we come, since we started really concentrating on the infrastructure of the City. And where we’re going into the future. And it’s hard to believe that when we started making these meetings, I think it was 2000 -2001 in talking about the infrastructure, that we are not under any administrative order or compliance order of any regulatory agency. That is something to be proud of for the City of Shreveport. Other cities are under mandates, under decrees from the EPA, from DEQ on what they’re doing. We are not under any. Why is that? Well, one thing is over the last five years, the City has invested a quarter of a billion dollars in infrastructure. That’s a ‘billion’ with a ‘B’, a quarter of a billion, $257 million have been spent. From a 2001 General Obligation Bond we invested $70 million. Set up, $50 million of that went to neighborhood streets and drainage projects. We had $70 million in revenue bonds that went to the water and sewer plants. We had $6 million that went to some of the lines and to our Stoner Lift Station. $36 million went to the Water Plant. Amis Water Plant has a $75 million that was just passed last year by the City Council, that is going to the water plant, also to more of our lift stations, and water and sewer lines. We’re going to see more and more work. And when we get into it more, you’ll see that our water and sewer mains are the ones that are below, what we call the line. But you’ve got to see this, and next time around at the end of this year, you’re going to see more improvements in there. So, I think we’ve done a great job in the City. You as Council, Mayor, the Administration of putting up the money and finding the money to spend this. Now I think when you look at that, and find out the maintenance and the upgrades that have been done, I don’t know of any Administration that has been able to accomplish this. I think it is being done right here. What you’re looking at in your report that as I said, that is on our web page. If you’ll take it a little at a time, three concerns that we bring out that’s in the report, and it talks about the Cross Lake Dam, Cross Lake. Up where we’re looking at and then also the increased water treatment capacity, in the Southeast Regional Water area. We’ll start with the southeast Regional Water Pressure Issue. We’ve already assigned and it’s under engineering to sign a contract to do all three of the projects. Southeast Shreveport water pressure issues are under these three projects that’s to be addressed. From the 36 inch water main transmission line to the Inner Loop Pump Station, 36 inch main to the 60 inch mains coming down will help the water pressure issues in that area. The water treatment capacity, we’ve been looking at it for years, we’re finally getting it to the first study of the river with the membrane and filter system, so that’s being put in up to (inaudible) now. And the final item is the Cross Lake Dam, looking at it and the future of where the railroad stands in the whole lake area. The lake is always a concentration, we will continue looking at the lake. There is a siltation that has gone on, and there will be an ongoing effort for the future. We have projects with the Corps of Engineers that are studying it today. And if I could get the overhead on please? This shows you as the overall use, and this is blurry, that you have that where we’re looking at, if you were drawing a line on the amount of capital that needs to be extended each year, you can look at the project and see we’re right on target, or very close to it. We went over last year, but where you were coming from in seeing that we’re very close to where the needs are. This is where I think if you look at, you’ll see that the City has been able to meet the needs of the past and where we’re moving forward. You’ve got charts that are in the presentation that talk about the water treatment facilities to the distribution system, to the sewer system, to the sewer collection system. These charts also go into streets and drainage. You look at these, but it all comes down to the one where we are. You’re very close in meeting the target on any given year. We’ve been low on some, high on the others, and the funding that has come out, that I think overall as far as putting the monies in that you can, you have done. What does that do? The more money that you put in, you’ve been putting into water and sewer has been one of the largest areas of needs. And we’ve had to raise rates. So, you’ve got to look at how is it going to be funded for the future, and I think that’s the challenge that the City will have that will be coming forth to this Council and future councils ahead. But I think overall, we’ve got a good report to the State. There is a lot of work we need to do, and we’re just going to have to keep on going. You’re going to see that we have over the next 50 years, we can line out that you’ve got a billion dollars of need. But you’ve always going to have that. That’s not going to be something that’s going to go away. It’s like at your house. You don’t start spending money on it, you’re going to find out that it’s going to collapse. We’ve got to keep spending money on our needs that we’ve got here in the city. Otherwise, we’ll get behind. I think that we have been behind in the past, but I think we’re catching up. And when you start spending a quarter of a billion dollars, over the last 5-6 years, I think you’ve done a lot. So, with that said, that was a quick report. On here, there is a lot to read in here, feel free to do it. But do you have any questions that I would hope to be able to answer for you?

Councilman Lester: Thank you, and before we go to Councilman Carmody, I’d like to say just a couple of things. 1) I appreciate Mr. Strong’s report. He provided a report to us a couple of months ago, if I’m not mistaken in writing. And I’d like to thank Councilman Carmody, because Councilman Carmody had the idea which I think is a good one to have this presentation made in the body of a City Council Meeting, so that our constituents would have more information as it relates to what’s going on with infrastructure. So, I want to thank him for that suggestion. And having said that, Councilman Carmody.

Councilman Carmody; Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And Mr. Strong, I applaud the work that this Council, and the previous council and this Mayor has done over the last few years. But I did want to do though, is for those persons that again don’t have the report in front of us, and grant it, it is accessible on the internet, but if you could get at least the monetary breakdown of what the city has calculated as the expenditures by the different divisions of the municipal infrastructure, so that at least we have that in the public record today. And as I was coming to the meeting, I really think that it would be interesting to see and ask any of those that are in attendance, if they would not mind raising their hand, if they are contemplating seeking public office, because I’m hoping that those persons that -- there’s one -- there’s two, and no hands on the Council. Okay. I just maybe I’m the lone citizen, but I think that for those of us that plan on staying in Shreveport, or calling it home, that if we don’t ask the questions, of those that are in charge of the City, then I think we’re foolish. Because more or less, we’re assuming that everything is being taken care of and that there is no need to worry about it. But in talking to my CPA this morning, he had said that just based upon what he was reading in the paper, and that if he took an estimate, he said, “I don’t know, I’m just shooting in the dark .” If there were a 100,000 taxpayers in the City of Shreveport, a billion dollars and maybe each of us just needs to write a $10,000 check and then we can fix everything. But I don’t have a $10,000 disposable check to give, and I’m not sure that 999,999 other taxpayers in the City of Shreveport will be willing to do the same thing. So we do look to the government, our municipal leadership to discern what the priorities need to be as far as the available revenue and debt capacity of the municipal in order to address the current needs of the City. And we always want to talk about continuing to grow. But as the analogies always been said you’re only as strong as your weakest link. And it’s difficult to continue to extend infrastructure out if you’re not taking care of what you’re presently have responsibility over. So, that being said, Mr. Strong, if I could ask you to please just run through what are the project costs, and I’m assuming these are in today’s dollars if we had them, to make repairs on the different facets of our municipal infrastructure.

Mr. Strong: Councilman, I think that it was kind of talked about a little bit in the presentation. That you’ve got to look at it, that it’d divided up with some of the priorities of some of the 20 year life, or whether they’re 50 year life, in looking at it. So, when you start looking at this, you’re going to have your priority set up, but looking at some 50 years down the road, you’re going to have to start spending money in the rate of about a billion dollars, just what we were saying to do this. But it doesn’t mean that you’re going to spend that billion dollars today. I think we have done well, when you start talking about over the last five or six years, have you spent a quarter of that? Yes, we have. Now, what do we have on board right now? We have $75 million of priority projects in water and sewerage, that you’re going to invest another $25 million into the water plant. You’re going to spend $19 million into the lift stations. You’ve got $15 million that’s going into water mains and you’ve got $15.5 million that is going to the sewer mains.

Councilman Carmody: And to make sure for those that are here and listening, that that falls under an enterprise fund, our water and sewer has to generate enough funds to support itself. Which is why we have to periodically look at the need to increase the cost for those services in order to provide for the system and the repairs needed for maintenance.

Mr. Strong: That $75 million to fund it, there was a 4% increase that came into effect in January of this year. And the last of that will go into effect in January of 2007. So, you will see that, that’s coming. But we’re working on it, and you’re still going to see that there is a lot of progress to do, and we’re trying to stay basically ahead of the curve and where we’re going. And I think the priority is that if we can keep the regulators out, that you don’t have to spend money on lawyers and fines. And that’s what we’re doing, unlike other cities that have had to pay millions of dollars in fines, our money is going into the ground.

Councilman Carmody: That takes care of our water and sewer side. What are the breakouts of the other pieces of the municipal infrastructure.

Mr. Strong: Councilman, you have like if you’re going to be looking at the transportation side over the next time, you could be talking about as much as $400-450 million in transportation, which you know right now, because we talk about this every time that we look at the concrete program, you have some $57 million in concrete repairs that we’re talking about.

Councilman Carmody: That we budgeted how much money for concrete for 2006?

Mr. Strong: Actually, we did $1.4 million.

Councilman Carmody: Which was a substantial increase over previous years.

Mr. Strong: That is correct. It’s a million dollars we were able to find that we put in there from the capital program.

Councilman Carmody: So, if we could do that for another 439 years, we’d be set.

Mr. Strong: Councilman, if you’d give it to me, I --

Councilman Carmody: I’d like to get it to you sooner than that.

Mr. Strong: I mean, that’s where it is, and (inaudible)

Councilman Carmody: And that’s not to extend any roads Mr. Strong, that’s just to take care of what we presently have.

Mr. Strong: This is to take care of what we have and to upgrade. Remember some of them are to upgrade to add more capacity too. Cause you have some that are the two lane or the narrow two-lane and you widening in putting in drainage systems as you go. And some of them are the total reconstruction. Bringing them up from the asphalt two-lane road to a curb and gutterless drainage. That’s the kind of things that we’re talking about with the upgrades.

Councilman Carmody: And for those persons who have not had a chance to actually review the report, we had asked that it’s done very well, and that it’s broken out by Council Districts, that you can actually see within a report how much need for those different parts of the whole component of the city. Broken out by the seven Council districts. And I think that that’s important, because in asking y’all to basically look at where the greatest need was first in the prioritize, how we would spend the money as the money came in, persons who traditionally pick up a telephone and call either their Councilman or the Mayor’s office and say, I’ve lived on this block for the last 20 years, and I’ve been waiting for this street to be rebuilt, when is it going to happen? Well, it’ll happen when we have the revenue and the funding available to address it. But sometimes the public has to get involved when we go into considering bonding out our debt capacity to address different things within the city needs. And if I remember correctly, Mr. Dark gave us a number, I thought somewhere about $150 million maybe that we’re now up to in debt capacity for our next bond issue, which might be I guess next year?

Mr. Dark: It’s a little bit over $100 million.

Councilman Carmody: Oh, it’s only a hundred. Thank you Mr. Dark. Okay, so we’ve got $100 million in again that we need to be looking at within the near future at least in a 50 year life cycle that we’ll be able to allocate toward the next step in correcting the problems and the needed repair within the city.

Mr. Strong: Believe me, the Mayor and Mr. Dark knows, I can give them that real quick.

Councilman Carmody: And spend every penny of it. I’m sure you can. Which brings up a question I guess I had, that if it were within your discretion to take that amount of available debt capacity, where would you recommend that the City of Shreveport put their money?

Mr. Strong: Councilman Carmody: You’re the elected official.

Councilman Carmody: In District C? I just heard District C is what I heard.

Mr. Strong: And all the Councilmen that are there, I’ve been an appointed person for some 34 years, and I have not been an elected official. I can tell you some of the --

Councilman Carmody: I’m not asking by areas, but what I’m asking is --

Mr. Strong: And I am not running for Mayor. Lets put that on the record.

Councilman Carmody: but as far as the difference, the different breakouts of infrastructure, we’ve now done substantial work in our water and sewer. Where would be the next area to try to bring our resources to bear. Continuing water and sewer --

Mr. Strong: You’ve got to continue on water and sewerage, and you’ve got to keep your roads, and -- anyway that you look at it.

Councilman Carmody: Streets and drainage. How much is estimated by the city as far as the needs in Streets and Drainage?

Mr. Strong: What I said was transportation, and transportation means the upgrading of the traffic signals that we’re looking at. And the fact -- one thing that we just got knowledge of is that the Youree Drive corridor has been approved by the State to be addressed as the intelligent traffic system program that’s on the rest of Youree Drive, all the way into downtown. So we’re looking forward to that. But (inaudible) intersections, bridges, and there’s roads. And that’s $450 million.

Councilman Carmody: $450 million? Okay. As we head into the fall and to the change of elected leadership, we will leave the next mayor and the next council with a budget in 2006. How close to the $33 million that we are advised we need to be annually spending for the 50 year renewal? What is the number? We have 2005 showing that we spent $28, 540,000 and we’re estimated to need to spend $33 million annually. So, it looks like we were up for the previous two years, and we’ve fallen just below that.

Mr. Strong: And you’re going to be up again.

Councilman Carmody: We’re going to be up again. Well, very good. Mr. Strong, I applaud your efforts and I do think that people might not really comprehend how significant it is that we are staying above the mandatory regulations and those authorities that would step in and tell you, forget all you grandeous plans for doing these things, we’re going to mandate that you spend money here and as a matter of fact, as part of the punitive damages, we’re going to fine the City of Shreveport for not having done it before. Those as you said, those are basically waste of valuable resources when you can be taken that same money which is what we’ve been doing and trying to correct the immediate needs that we have. This scenario of not unique to Shreveport or any community I’m sue. As we all know, things wear out. Things have a useful life. We spend money to buy a new car with the envision that eventually we’re going to pay that car off, and we’ll drive it for the rest of our life without a note. And that’s just not reality. Because the car is going to need tires, it’s going to need oil changes periodically, and if some point, maybe a paint job. And at some point, you say man I’m spending so much money in keeping the car rolling, I’d be better off going and buying another one. But we don’t have that luxury when it comes down to water and sewer, transportation, and the different pieces of infrastructure that good bad or indifferent in our (inaudible), and that we’re responsible to take care of. So I do applaud you for that. And I do think that it’s something that each of us needs to be looking at as far as question for those persons that would like our vote to serve the community. Not that they should have the answers to -- Oh, I can tell you how to do the $33 million a year or above that amount, but at least that it’s on their radar scope as something that has to be addressed during their term, whether they will be here for four years of eight. And had the City being doing this in may prior years, I doubt we’d find ourselves up at this level, but I’m glad that we’ve taken the initiative and tried to address it head on. But as you say, the number will never be zero. Because we are a live active community in which people want to get from here to there, and unfortunately things wear out going from here to there. So, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for taking the time to allow us to have this. I’ll go ahead and relinquish to the Chair. But again, I’d like to thank Mr. Strong and all of his personnel in the Department of Operational Services, because that when I came on board, almost eight years ago, the person that was in a similar position a year ago, and I asked him what we did in order to start to correct problems, and he said Mr. Carmody, we’re so busy just putting out the fires, that we can come back and start fixin things. Which I thought was a very sad state of affairs. Granted we still have fires to put out, but at least we’re addressing the overall system, and I think that goes a long way towards establishing that process so that those that follow us will at least replicate it, I pray, because again, I don’t have a $10,000 check to hand over to you Mike. It wouldn’t go real far. But I’ve got a feeling that it’s going to cost me a lot more down the road because I’ll be here to help pay for it. But again, thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilwoman Robertson: I just have a quick question. In this morning’s paper, it kinda alluded that there was like a wish list for the southeast Shreveport water. And I know on the 23^rd of March, there were engineering contracts let out for those mains, and for those Inner Loop (inaudible) that we were discussing. Is that correct?

Mr. Strong: That is correct.

Councilwoman Robertson: And one other thing. Do you because there are some people in my particular district that have asked me, and they have gone on line and looked, and there is some information stated that the Southern Loop with the Linwood tie in was projected to be done for 2006 towards the end of the year. But that’s been put on hold from what I understand from you? The tie in at Linwood and 49 and Southern Loop.

Mr. Strong: It’s going to be closer to the 2007 period.

Councilman Lester: I just wanted to say thank you for your report Mr. Strong. Were there any other comments that you wanted to make?

Mr. Strong: Other than Mayor, did I miss anything?

Mayor Hightower: You did a good job.

Mr. Strong: Well, (inaudible) money.

Mayor Hightower: We’ll keep you for a few more days.

Councilman Lester: I will say this, and I don’t want this to be glossed over. At any point, we as a Council can direct the resources to your department at budget time, and we look at the needs and each one of us at our Council Offices has the book that you and Mr. Holt sit down very painstakingly, and go through street by street, almost a block by block situation in terms of concrete and asphalt repair. And at the end of the day, it really is a function of money. If this council decides that it wants to put an additional priority above and beyond what we’ve been able to do, then this council has the ability to do that. And in times past, we have committed those additional resources. At the same time, we could fix our infrastructure problem by doing what many other municipalities do in the northeast. I was up there very recently, and that’s toll roads. But I don’t think that our public is in the mindset of paying additional cost to do toll roads. We could pass some new taxes, if we chose to. But as I appreciate it, our local constituents are not in the mind of doing any additional taxes for those purposes. So, at the end of the day we have to use the resources that we have and try to put them in the best position we have. And we can in terms of dealing with our roads and our infrastructure. And it’s always a situation where the means are going to outweigh our resources. But there are other things that we have chosen to do as a city. And those are the choices that we have to make as Council Persons, and I just again, want to thank you and Mr. Holt for doing an outstanding job of keeping us abreast of those situations. And as I appreciate it from the Council, when additional revenues are available, in fact, I believe in this past budget year, and I think it was a measure by Councilman Jackson, a budget amendment that put additional resources within -- was it asphalts or was it in sidewalks?

Councilman Jackson: Sidewalks.

Councilman Lester: We did additional money in sidewalks and we did additional money in concrete road. So, I don’t want it to be lost on the public that we are sitting here and we hare now understanding what’s going on. when the dollars are such that we can put additional money to the department, I just want to let it be known that we have done that as recently as this past budget cycle.

Councilman Green: Mike I’d just like to publicly thank you and your department for a great job. I also like to commend you all for the method of customer service that you all have. Even when you can’t do something, or have not the money to do it, you have a wonderful customer service approach. But I’d just like to thank you all for your hard work and I’ll be calling you tomorrow asking you for some more stuff.

Mr. Strong: I would imagine.

Councilman Jackson: As I listen to Councilman Carmody as you and he talked back and forth if you will, one thing, I said to a group last night, in the city about these same issues, is that it takes a commitment on behalf of the council and very often, some of the people who you see getting beat up are not the people responsible for making decisions in the sense of funding these kinds of things. As the Chairman has said, we’re responsible for setting priorities and to then fund those priorities. And so, a lot of the load goes on not only this council, but prior councils and prior administrations who in my opinion, did not necessarily make it a commitment, or make it a priority, but I will say to you, as someone as said I think adequately, I just think this Council has Charter responsibility, that is by Charter, certain responsibility to provide basic and fundamental infrastructure, and those things that we call particularly water and sewer, streets and roads and those kinds of things. But I would have us to know that as we keep talking about the billion dollar problem, it’s a legitimate problem. But I said to the citizens who I spoke to on last night, the time is out. We’ve got to evaluate. We’ve got to make sure that you elect people and that folks are here who are 1) being good stewards of the public’s resources. Which means from time to time, we have to make difficult decisions and remember that the Charter makes us responsible for certain things. A lot of things we do, we have the benefit of doing that as though we put money in, that really have nothing to do with our Charter identified responsibilities. And it takes courage to say no sometimes because we’ve got to take care of the basics first. And I hope that as we move forward, we will stay committed to that as we move toward the budget. Because it’s always an easier conversation to have in March and April, than it is to have in November when we rightly ought to be having these discussions and ought to be making these commitments and as we do our fiscal and fiduciary responsibility, then by the same token, people who live in our City have got to understand that all of us as citizens have to recognize you can’t have first class services and pay second class prices. There’s just no way we’re going to be able to get that done. So, the men and women, I believe who provide services for our city, including you all who are in management, do the best you can with making bricks with no straw. And it takes more, and we’ve got to give you more. We’ve got be sure that we’ve done our part. To be sure that we’re not appropriating money in places that are not fundamentally necessary so that we can take care of the basics and the fundamentals that we’re supposed to take care of. And again, once we do that, then I think we can look in the eyes of citizens with a real clear conscious and say we’ve done all we could, now we need your help. But we don’t need to ask them for their help before we do our part first on this side. So I would suggest that all of us need to remember, not in April, but in November when it’s time to put together these budgets that we’ve got to put our money where our mouths are and I think we’d be better served if we do that Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Strong: One final thing that I will say to you that even with the capital expenditure that you do and everything. It is the people that work in our department that keeps it glued together, that keeps the lines held up when they break, and the sewer at 20 degrees at 2:00 in the morning, they’re out fixing that so. Streets and drainage, the same way of keeping it up. So, it takes our people that keep it together when we don’t have all of the large dollars to spend on capital. And I will tell you what, DOS has got some of the best employees in the city.

Public Hearing: None

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

Confirmations and/or Appointments:

Metropolitan Planning Commission – Mr. Dale Colvin

Motion by Councilman Green , seconded by Councilman Walford to confirm the appointment of Mr. Dale Colvin to the Metropolitan Planning Commission.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I assume and I think that on the agenda at the last meeting obviously, I wasn’t here, but I’m assuming that the Council has asked all the pertinent questions with regards to this individual. I read the resume myself, but I’m assuming that everything is clear from the Administrative perspective?

Mr. Dark: Yes sir.

Councilman Jackson: Thank you.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, just for the benefit of the public that’s watching, this is for an appointment to the Metropolitan Planning Commission.

Councilman Lester: That’s correct.

Councilman Walford: I think we jumped the gun before that got said.

Councilman Lester: Okay, thank you Councilman Walford.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda:

1. Resolution No. 50 of 2006: A Resolution accepting dedication for utility servitudes in the North Pointe Subdivision, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 51 of 2006: A Resolution rejecting bids received on IFB #06-030, construction of Milam Street Parking structure and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 33 of 2006: An ordinance to amend Section 10-44 of the City of Shreveport, Code of Ordinances relative to alcoholic beverages and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, on my agenda, I see a number 4, is that -- ?

Councilman Lester: Yeah, I was going to ask --

Mr. Thompson: It’s Mr. Johnny Brown, GIS Coordinator. The appointment letter and resume missed the agenda by one day. I was going to take that up last, because you might also want to go back and confirm him.

Councilman Jackson: I’d like to move that we add items 1, 2, and 3.

Motion by Councilman Jackson , seconded by Councilman Carmody to add Resolution Nos. 50 and 51 of 2006, and Ordinance No. 33 of 2006 to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

Mr. Thompson: Because you’ve already passed confirmations and appointments, if anybody wants to motion to add Mr. Johnny Brown, and to confirm him, if there would be no objection, would be in order.

Motion by Councilman Walford , seconded by Councilman Jackson to add and confirm the appointment of Mr. Johnny Brown to the position of GIS Coordinator, Department of Operational Services. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

Public Comments (Agenda Items to be Adopted)

Mr. Ken Krefft: (157 Archer Ave) ) I’d like to address the Council today to speak in support of Resolution No. 33¹ on your agenda for adoption today. I want to thank our City Traffic Engineer, Michael Erlund for coming up with the language of the resolution. Basically, March a year ago, Pope John Paul, II was quite ill and we all sensed that he was soon going to be with St. Peter, and I thought at that time, renaming two blocks of Anniston Avenue between Patton and Atlantic. And then I realized the two year wait, and that would be April of next year. And that other idea before you today Mr. Chairman, simply dedicates those two blocks in his memory and I want to thank Ms. Glass for bringing the attention of the (inaudible), I’m hoping this won’t cause any great heckles. And on an aside note, I’d love to see the Cowboys play the Indians just for charity or something. Thank you.

Mr. Isaac Hardman: (3106 Logan Street) Actually I rise in support of the recognition of the union for the City workers. While sitting back there in the Chambers just now, I noticed the seal of Shreveport that’s hanging behind you guys, and it’s simply (inaudible) with the words, union, justice, and confidence. That’s the very epitome of the seal. It says it all. Union, Justice, and Confidence. So lets take a look at these three words. Union, which simply means joining together, unity. Uniting for a common purpose. All we’re requesting here today is that you recognize the City Worker’s Union. We merely want to have a voice in the workplace. Next is Justice. Which simply means being fair and impartial according to the principles of right and wrong. Again, we’re requesting justice. To be treated with dignity, and respect on the job. Last but not least is confidence, which is a feeling of trust, reliance and faith. The City Workers have lived up to the confidence placed on them by the citizens of Shreveport in every sense of the word. I couldn’t have said it better than Mr. Strong just now, when he just got through praising the City workers. And I’ve got all the confidence in this Council that you’ll do the right thing. That you’ll vote for the recognition of this union for the city workers. And also, I’d be remiss if I didn’t thank the Mayor for reminding everyone to go vote for a tax renewal, April 1^st, for this Shreveport Fire and Police Department. As a matter of fact, I think that’s the right thing to do. And I want Mike Carter, the President of the Police Union and the Firefighters to know that the City Workers are behind them 100%. There is no division there. But I would like to know from the Mayor, or I would ask of the mayor to do the same thing for the city workers, that you recognize these guys, and I want to thank you and have a great day.

Mr. Floyd Robbins: (1819 Oakdale) I’m an employee of the City of Shreveport, and I am also President of the Shreveport City Workers Local 13-25, USW International. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. Mayor, Chairman of the Council, Mr. Calvin Lester and the Council Members. We’re here today to ask for your support in our efforts to gain recognition. In a few minutes, you will vote whether to accept that recognition, what we’ve been trying to do for the last three or four years. The last time, we came before you, we actually won on a 4-3 vote. We’re asking that you do this again, even though the Mayor vetoed it. The purpose for the Shreveport City Council to pass this is to give the workers a voted on voice to represent themselves at the table when they have discussions or issues that concern them. The City workers are asking each of you find it in your heart to support that vote. To support the choice of PACE/USW International to represent them and give them a voice at the table of decisions that affect their everyday lives. I think you for allowing me to speak in front of you, and I ask you again for your support with your vote for recognition of the City Workers. If there are any questions, I ask that you ask them and direct them to our attorney, Mr. William Lurye. Thank you.

Mr. William Lurye: (2540 Severn Avenue, Metairie, LA) I am the attorney for the Steel Workers. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for an additional two minutes if possible, I assure you, I’ll turn it back in if I don’t use it. Mr. Chairman, members of the Council, Mr. Mayor, I am here to speak on behalf of Resolution No. 28, of course in support of Resolution No. 28. In particular, I’d like to address a couple of items. There in the discussion of this resolution, there have been a number of misstatements, and perhaps a great deal of misperceptions over what this resolution does. This resolution does not confer collective bargaining on the steel workers. This resolution simply calls for recognition of the steel workers as the representative of the city workers. Nothing more. If there were to be collective bargaining conferred on the steel workers, that would require a separate resolution passed at another time. Moreover, all you’re doing today when you vote to approve that resolution, is set in motion a process by which the steel workers would be recognized. Your vote today does not result in an automatic recognition. The steel workers would have to gather support from a majority of the city workers. That support would be presented to a panel of clergy, neutral clergy who would verify that in fact, the city workers represent a majority of the city employees, and only then, only then after that confidential process has gone forward and been completed, would the city workers be recognized as the representative of these employees. As I said, that recognition would not be collective bargaining. The language in the resolution is “that the city will ‘meet and confer’” with the union to resolve employee workplace issues. Nothing in the resolution requires the city to do anything other than to sit down and talk with the steel workers over workplace issues and a good faith effort to try to resolve them. The Louisiana legislature in 1933 passed a law that recognized that employees in this state had the right to come together and to form a union. There have been other statutes that have passed, most notoriously perhaps on the labor side, a statute called the ‘right to work law.’ That statute recognizes among other things that employees have the right to organize and be represented in their workplace. And the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that that statute and other labor statutes that hold the same thing apply to all public employers, whether it’s the state itself, a city, a school board or any other municipality. The supreme court noted that not only is this process permitted, not only are employees permitted to come together and to organize, but that it is favored. And that is the phrase which is used in a decision called Davis v. Henry. That it is favored under Louisiana law. Because it promotes the peaceful resolution of workplace disputes. This experience, the experience of recognized unions by cities, in New Orleans, Lake Charles, Baton Rouge has worked favorably and peacefully. Just last month, Mayor Kip Holden in meeting with his union, his employee unions was quoted in the paper, the Morning Advocate as saying that meeting and conferring with his unions promote mutual respect and improved employee morale. This is the process to be favored, and you should be willing to give your employees a voice in the workplace. Finally, at least commentator has stated that a meet and confer agreement such as this will present a cost to the city. There is no cost. There is no cost. There is nothing in this resolution that requires any change in working conditions. There is nothing in this resolution that even suggest a change in working conditions. And certainly meeting and conferring with a bargaining representative, a representative of these workers does nothing to impose a cost. I want to thank you for your attention. I hope you will vote in favor of this resolution, and I’ll be glad to answer any questions.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Lurye, did you write this resolution?

Mr. Lurye: No, I did not, but I have reviewed it.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at the time when we have debate is (inaudible), we’d like to be able to call him back at that time.

Councilman Lester: I think that would be appropriate.

Mr. Lurye: I’ll be available. Thank you.

Ms. Jackie Lansdale: (2015 Fairfield Avenue) Thank you. Chairman Lester, ladies and gentlemen of the Council, Mayor Hightower. I’ve come to speak in favor of Resolution No. 28. In this country of ours, The United States of America, the majority of public employees are for the collective bargaining rights. In fact, 34 states have legislation guaranteeing the right to organize, choose a representative and negotiate the terms of their employment for their public employees. Louisiana is not among them. In our state, public employees must get a board, a council, a commission, in other words, the bosses, in this case, you, to agree before they can enter into a partnership agreement. And why should you do something like that. Well, as the leader of a fellow public employees, please permit me to offer up the following: In just about everyone of those 34 states, that do guarantee the opportunity to bargain, the quality of life indexes GDP, Health issues, Life Expectancy, and Infant Mortality (inaudible) etc, are higher than in Louisiana. There is a benefit of ownership in the process. Take for example my colleague at the Jefferson Federation of Teachers in Metairie, LA. They made history two years ago. They were able to pass a tax for teacher salaries in a parish that is notorious for voting down milages. There is no doubt this would not have happened without the combined strength of a union and the school board. Last year, they had no trouble finding certified teachers, which by the way is the greatest factor in raising student achievement, to fill their classroom. Clearly a win-win. Here locally, can you count the times that the musicians (inaudible) unfairly hard economic times? The end result, we can all continue to enjoy what they bring to our life and to our community. Yes through times of instability, economic and natural disaster, this joint ownership agreement provides a framework for all to work together. In our world of education, I am reminded of my collective bargaining sisters in St. Tammany, and again in Jefferson, who worked with their administration to get their schools up and running, putting children back in the classroom, and employees back to work in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. A partnership provides stability through changes in governmental leadership. We may rub you all, but there are timelines on your service here. Employees were hired before you took office, and many hope to remain after you move on. Long standing practice that a perfectly acceptable under one administration can be abruptly changed under new management. This is frustrating to employees. Management and elected officials can lead to misunderstanding and ill-will. Policies that are established on a handshake are not binding, and therefore create an unstable environment. Let me give you a homegrown example of what I am talking about. We at the federation have an agreement prior to our current administration, that allowed us to see our teachers and school employees, members on their breaks, their lunch times, their unencumbered times. We saw them from anything from professional development reasons to help in facing accusations and allegations, to personal reasons such as leaves, sabbaticals and retirement. Now we are limited to before school and after school under the strictest conditions. We used to be able to be at any meeting, regardless of the level when an employee was facing an allegation or accusation that could potentially affect their professional livelihood. But that too has been restricted to only when it reaches personnel action level, a really, really bad place to start. The partnership put all the agreements between the parties in writing. It is for a specified period of time. In short everybody knows where they stand and what their rights are and how long they are in affect. At the end of that period, you come together and decide what worked and what didn’t. Do you know we hear that this is a republican vs. a democratic thing. Well, the b0oards I spoke of in Jefferson and St. Tammany are primarily republican boards. There goes that myth. And I read that this is a racially charged issue. You don’t have to look far to know that that is not true. To deny this basic American right is not a disease of the skin, but rather a disease of the heart. Let me end this by saying remember we are the people of a nation that have sent our young men and women to risk their lives for democratic principles. I suspect many of them are for the rank of public employment. Your vote today seems very, very pale in comparison to that. Thank you to those of you who have continued to support the city workers through your vote, and to others of you, we say in the name of labor peace, we hope your heart heals soon. Thank you very much for your time.

Councilman Lester: Thank you. And Councilman Jackson and I couldn’t go home if we didn’t recognize that she is the leader of both of our favorite unions. So, in the spirit of marital peace, we need to say that.

Ms. Lansdale: (inaudible)

Rev. Richard Hardy: (1460 Kenneth Street) Mr. President, members of the Council, Mr. Mayor. I’m here in support of this resolution 28. As a pastor I guess I have a personal concern, because members of our church asked me to be here today. Then also, I’ve had requests from members in the community to be here in support of this effort. I would think that those people who do probably the dirtiest work, back breaking work, should be given some consideration. This problem is not a new one. It’s been with us for many, many years. I would hope today that the least you could do would be to recognize them as though some kind of negotiation, at least bring them to the table or their spokesperson to the table to do some justice and to provide some fair play for them. I hope that you will vote to recognize the union. Thank you.

Councilwoman Robertson: I’d like to make a motion to suspend the rules to address Resolution No. 28.

Motion by Councilman Robertson , seconded by Councilman Green to suspend the rules in order to address Resolution No. 28 of 2006.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, is there a reason why we want to suspend the rules to do it right now?

Councilman Lester: Yeah, there are a number of city workers that came down for this vote and if we suspend the rules, we can allow them to get back to doing what they do best which is making us look good..

Councilman Jackson: Let me say Mr. Chairman, the reason I ask the question, with all due respect is because basically it’s the next thing on the agenda.

Councilman Lester: No, we have like two other things, but I mean, if your choice is not to deal with it at that point.

Councilman Jackson: I’m just saying I didn’t want them to think they had another 30 minute wait. It was really next thing on the agenda. I just didn’t know if we needed to suspend the rules, and that was the reason I asked.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

1. Resolution No. 28 of 2006: 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 Jackson to adopt.

Councilman Lester: I know we’re going to have debate, so I would want to make a statement first, and then as the author of the resolution, and then we’ll kick that back to anyone that wants to ask any questions. We’ve talked about this issue this year, last year, and I think it’s time again that we give these city workers what is basically the minimum that they have asked for which is the ability to be represented and have a group of people speak for themselves. I think it’s one of the most basic things of our constitution, is the right to have representation. We have the right to be represented by counsel, and any number of things. They’re just asking for the minimum. I’ve heard that one of the concerns is that if we give recognition to our municipal employees, then certainly we’re going to have a problem from police and firemen, because they’re going to request it. I think that’s what we call in the legal business a ‘red Herrin,’ and I’ll tell you why. The fact of the matter is our policemen and firemen have many protections that city workers do not. The police and firemen have Civil Service protection, and as a matter of fact, the policemen and firemen have the right to address the Louisiana legislature to deal with their issues. Our city workers and other city employees don’t have that right. Even if they wanted to go to the legislature to deal with their issues. They have to deal with all of their issues on a local basis. Whereas our policemen and firemen have the ability to go to the legislature to deal with local issues, as it relates to pay, local issues as it relates to Civil Service and things of that nature. And they have been to their credit, very successful in dealing with issues that are important to them. And I think that’s important. Because just like its important for us to have good morale with the police department and the fire department, I think it’s very important for us to have good morale with the rest of our city workers. And for us to treat the city workers separate and apart from the police and firemen is unfair, but it has been happening. And at the same time, to use the argument that well, if the city workers get recognition, then suddenly, the policemen and firemen are going to be down here, that’s just a non-starter, because again, at the end of the day, the police and firemen have many of the protections that the city workers do not have and in all fairness, probably will never have. You know I saw something in one of our local papers that made the point that Shreveport can’t afford to have recognition, and they wanted to go the whole route of collective bargaining, and then I started thinking. Do we really want to live in a city that says, they can’t afford to do the right thing? Do we want to live in a city that says, we can’t afford to give people who work repairing our streets, and repairing our drainage, when the water main is out at 2:00 in the morning? My constituents call me, I call Mike Strong, and Mike Strong calls one of those guys in the blue shirts. And they get out of the bed, regardless of what time it is, and they go fix it. And for us to deny people that we depend on, the basic right of representation, something that we as Americans enjoy is ludicrous to me. I don’t understand it. I don’t want to live in that city that says, we can’t afford to do the right thing. We are in a situation just to expound, where our president has decided that he is committing untold resources to bring democracy to Iraq. And he has made it clear that however much it cost, lives and resources, he is going to stand pat, because in his mind, it’s the right thing to do. And he doesn’t want to hear anything from anybody. He don’t want to hear about the billions of dollars that we are spending and we’re taking money from CDBG, and we’re running up a national debt, and we’re sending our young men back home in body bags and maimed everyday. He doesn’t care about that. You know why? Because he has decided that democracy in Iraq is the right thing to do. But I didn’t see as I read our local paper pretty frequently, because I’m in our local paper pretty frequently. I’ve never seen our editorial board say, you know what? We need to get out of Iraq, because we can’t afford to be there. So, if we can afford to be in Iraq to the tune of billions of dollars and we can’t afford to give our city workers the right to represent themselves, and Mr. -- the attorney, I’m bad on names --

Councilman Hogan: Lurye.

Councilman Lester: Lurye, thank you, made it clear that adoption of this resolution cost the city the grand total of “0”. Not a dime. It’s not a budget amendment, we’re not going into any enterprise fund, we’re not going into any slush fund, it’s not going to be taken out of Riverfront Development Fund or any of the enterprise funds, it’s going to cost us nothing. And it’s going to mean everything to the city workers, because they will know that we really respect their work. At the end of every council meeting, just about, whether it’s at the end of Mardi Gras season or if it’s at the end of Christmas time, or if it’s at the end of a big storm, during public comments or council comments, each one of us takes an opportunity and says Mike Strong, SPAR, whatever, thank your workers for coming out and cleaning things up, because the citizens had a problem and they took care of it. Thank you for doing a good job at cleaning up all that trash on the streets as it relates to Mardi Gras. Thank you Department Heads for the work that your city workers do. And at every council meeting, we make a point to say thank you. Well, now is that time, when we can codify and qualify how much we really appreciate them. And we will know whether or not, the congratulatory statements are more empty platitudes or whether it was actually meant from the hearts. And I would just ask my colleagues to vote yes on this particular matter. Again, it’s not going to cost us anything. It’s not a budget item, I’m just asking us up here to be courageous and do the right thing. And again, we’ve done it before, we’ve made strides, anything else that people are saying is going to be the death of the city, I don’t agree with that. And for any of us to vote no, on recognizing the city workers, those folks that are here in black, and those folks that are here in blue, that do jobs that we won’t do, couldn’t do or refuse to do and look them in the face is a sin and a crime. Thank you.

Councilman Jackson: I want to thank you for those comments and I’ll do all I can not to be redundant in all of those comments. On yesterday, I’d asked the question of the fire and police chiefs who were here a question with regard to the people who worked (inaudible) who were not going to be covered whenever we go out on Saturday, and I think we ought to go out on Saturday, and be sure that we renew that tax. But I also was concerned about those people who I found out who worked in those offices who support those same men and women who are worthy, I would add, of the raises that they’ve received, when they don’t get consideration for the same kind of raise and my question was what happens to the total morale of the department. It’s not any good to have the folks on the second floor, the folks on the first floor sad. And there ought to be a general, I thought our job is and you know again, at the risk of being redundant on yesterday, I suggested to us, that I thought our job was to raise the tide. It’s there job to put your boats on the water, but it’s our job to raise the tide. And though you know one vote may be a yacht, another may be a canoe, they both will go up, if you raise the tide. And my idea is that we ought to have some concern. I don’t think this vote necessarily takes care of that, but it does go in a direction that suggest that we are at least aware, we are at least conscious and more importantly, we are at least concerned. And so, I think what the attorney who came earlier, he said to me, or he said to us, that this is simply an opportunity, and if he’s here, I’d like to just confirm this, because all of us as councilmen, and we need to be clear on this, because I think that this may clear up some dysfunctional thought processes that we may be engaged in. Because it seems to me, and I’ll just ask you this, and you can answer it yes or no. It seems to me that you suggested to me that what this resolution would do is simply recognize the city workers and give them an opportunity to meet and confer with the city and it’s representatives, whether it be the Mayor or whomever that may be, it’s representative about issues that they have concerns about. Is that correct?

Mr. Lurye: A qualified yes. Before they get to that point, they have to demonstrate that they represent a majority of city workers through a confidential process which is then verified by a group of clergy selected by both sides.

Councilman Jackson: So in other words, in 28, what we’re putting in place today is this idea that we at least recognize USW and PACE, if you will, to be representatives of this group, and then that now only gives them the authority to go forward with this confidential process that will clarify and qualify that there is percentage, a necessary percentage that they do in fact represent that group. If they fail to meet that, then what we do today really doesn’t matter, because they don’t meet the standard necessary to become that exclusive representative. Is that correct?

Mr. Lurye: That is correct.

Councilman Jackson: So, all we’re actually are asking to do is to say we recognize them and then we put the owness on them to be sure that they represent legitimately all of the -- whatever the required percentage is of all the employees of the City of Shreveport who are applicable to this particular category. Is that correct?

Mr. Lurye: That’s correct.

Councilman Jackson: Now, I would like to ask, thank you. That answered my question. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask, I saw Michael was here and also Trey. I think I’m saying the names right. I want to ask if they would come forward.

Councilman Lester: Jaime.

Councilman Jackson: Jaime, I’m sorry.

Councilman Lester: Good afternoon Mr. Carter and Mr. Touchet. Could you please state your name and business address for the record.

Mr. Carter: Michael Edward Carter, (1527 Garland Place)

Mr. Touchet: Jaime Touchet, (10010 Rocky Knoll Cr)

Councilman Jackson: Y’all can both stay up there and it won’t be very long. What I’d like to do is ask you, I was writing down questions, because they kept referring to supporting the tax and that the city workers supported you.. I wanted to find out, what is your advice to this council? Given the fact that you enjoy the conditions of currently that are being sought by the city workers. What would be your advice as people who have been there and done that, with the police and the fire, what would be your advice to we as councilmen? Because we’ve obviously whenever folks run, they try to seek your support, you endorse and you support and those kinds of things, and so, folks if I put it in the same motif as Councilman Carmody earlier, for those folks who are looking to run, you’re the faces of folks who are important to folks who want to run and they make a presentation to your group, and then you decide who you’re going to be with based on what they feel about fire and police. Is that correct? And then I would think that what we’re asking today to do is just add another face, and say when people are running we want to know how you feel about fire and police and city workers. And so my question I guess, would be, based on your familiarity with the process that you’re already engaged in, what would be your advice to this council on what we ought to do about this particular vote?

Mr. Carter: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. Thank you, and I’d be glad to answer what I can. I can say for the Shreveport Police Officers Association, and the more than 425 plus members that we represent, we would not be where we are today, if we did not have an open channel communication with Mayor Keith Hightower. Every police officer that’s on that force today and every police officer from this day forward, can be thankful to Keith Hightower for what he’s done for us. Through open dialogue and open meetings that’s been able to occur. What I’ve heard here today, from the attorney for the PACE Union is something that’s been very revealing to me. I thought this was collective bargaining endeavor. We have a Civil Service Law in the State of Louisiana that was established by the legislature in the 1940s. That is more or less an individual arbitration for a civil servant (police and fire). So Mr. Lester is right. We do have an enhanced right to due process when it comes to our employment. I wish that, that in fact covered all public employees, because I think all deserve it, especially our city employees. So, I can say for a fact through my education that meet and confer is non-binding. If you were to vote for that here today, you’re not signing away the administration’s ability to say no. And second of all, I heard him say mutual respect. The main thing that you’re showing for the men and women behind me who truly deserve it, is that you have a mutual respect for them and the job that they do. So, I’d like to say thank you for that. I would ask that you would support it, and I’d like to say thank you to Mayor Keith Hightower for all he’s done for us.

Mr. Touchet: Meet and confer is essentially what we have as the firefighter’s local. We meet with Keith Hightower when we have issues, he’s been very good to us. We’ve been able to work out a lot of things in those meetings that maybe wouldn’t have been worked out without those types of meeting. The notion of meet and confer is something that really I feel like we have right now, and I believe that city employees would benefit from it gravely. My membership would definitely support the city employees, and the meet and confer motion, we’re behind them 100%.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, I’d also want to recognize I called up Mr. Robinson who now is serving as President and what I’m suggesting is it seems as if Mr. Robbins and the USW Group, the city workers group are asking for -- to be collateral, to ask for the exact same thing, and it seems to me as they stand here together, all they’re asking us to do is to add a third face to this particular picture. And not to ask that they get anymore than what the police or the firemen have, and I think the Mayor would suggest to us, I really was learning about this process, the very first time, we were going through this a year or two ago, what have you. And the Mayor said to me, indeed what happens is we don’t want collective bargaining, and that we were against it vehemently, if you will, but now, it seems to me that collective bargaining is not in question. That what’s actually happening now, and I’m assuming, and I don’t want to put anybody on the spot, so let me be just kinda of rhetorical when I say this, that I’m looking to find out then if are we asking for a collateral status, then how could we look, just at the city worker, because I’m not trying to be emotional, how could he look at the citizens of the City of Shreveport and say we have this, we have this, but we won’t have that? It’s impossible that he can do that. What I’m saying is I reluctantly the first time supported it, because I just kinda had my fingers crossed, because if the idea of collective bargaining at the city level scared me a little bit because I know how we do our budget. And if we’re forced to pay a particular amount where we going to get the money from. And the biggest item that I can say to people who live in my district that I had a problem with or an issue with was collective bargaining. Now in order to not support it, I’d have to go back and tell ‘em well, I think they’re lying to me, so I didn’t support it. But the truth is, on the record, we’ve had individuals say that they seek only to be collateral. Seek only to have the same thing. And I wanted to try on record to get the firemen and the police’s disposition. Because what the city workers have told me is that the firemen and police support them. To me, it’s better to get it from the horse’s mouth.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Jackson: And today, we’ve been able to get it from them. For me, this seals the deal. This says to me to the citizens of Shreveport. Because Mr. Robbins is standing here and what was said earlier about supporting the police and fire, that Saturday, everybody ought to go out and make sure that the police and fire keep what they have. But at the same time, it suggested to me today at this meeting that we ought to vote and say before Saturday, that we’re going to also give the city workers in reference to their standing with the city, and their union standing with the city the same thing. That we will not have a cast system where some people are here and other people are here. I believe that the police and the firemen are worthy of the raise that the tax is going to give them, but I also think that the city workers are worthy of this recognition and I would just ask my colleagues to think about it and you don’t have to go on record, as we’re not in the business of forcing anybody to say anything, but I would be wondering when I left this meeting, if the vote did not pass, what were we afraid of? And I would suggest to those of you who are here, that not to be fooled by a pat on the back. Because I learned when I was in High School, my coach used to tell me is that a pat on the back is six inches away from a kick between the back pocket. I say that only to say this. Thank you to the police, thank you to the firemen, thank you to the city workers, because we know even when with the pay raise that we give the police, they still are worth more than we pay. The pay raise that we give to the firemen, they’re still worth more than we pay them and the city workers are still worth it. We as citizens I believe (inaudible) citizens first, and all citizens as well have to begin to say, you all have been giving us, all of you, first class work and first class service, and we’ve been giving you second class consideration and second class pay. We’re going to do better I hope, and I hope this is one step in that direction. Thank you.

Councilman Green: I’d just like to say thank you for coming, and when I was -- No. 1, I cannot match speaking like an educator, Councilman Jackson nor can I speak like an attorney, Councilman Lester. But I will say, when I was their age, I could. But it’s been a while now, so the only thing I could say to you all is that I appreciate what you do, and you have my vote today, tomorrow, and the next day and the next day. Thank you.

Councilman Hogan; Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lurye, would you come up for a moment? Sir when you did the presentation just a few minutes ago, you were talking about a panel that was formed. A panel of clergymen. Could you explain to me why that is necessary, why clergymen and who forms the panel?

Mr. Lurye: Why is it necessary? It would be -- clergy agreed upon by the city and the union. The thought and belief is that certainly clergy have reputation for honesty, and as an independent body of clergy selected jointly by the city and the union, that these clergy would honestly and fairly review these indications of support that the union received, and that they would honestly certify that the union received the majority of support or did not received the majority of support.

Councilman Hogan: And I would just be interested to know, how you became involved in this as well? Who contacted you and how you got to where you are today?

Mr. Lurye: Sure. How I got where I am today is that I was born and raised in a union household, and my grandfather was murdered organizing a garment shop in New York. So, I do this for a living, I live in Louisiana, I and my partners represent unions throughout Louisiana, including steel workers., We were involved in the efforts a couple a year ago and talked to them about the efforts this time. And we made it known to them that if they needed or wanted someone to come speak to you that either I or my other partners would be glad to do that. But we’re not hired guns, we just simply go out there and go home and forget about this, this is a way of life for me. And if it wasn’t for labor unions, I wouldn’t have been a lawyer

Councilman Hogan: Well, when we had this discussion last year, I didn’t remember hearing your name or seeing you here. As I recall, it was the PACE. That’s Allied Chemical Workers Union, and not the Steel Workers. I guess more specifically, I guess who was the first person to contact you? Was it perhaps Mr. Robbins? Or just who contacted you, and asked you to represent?

Mr. Lurye: I don’t recall. I really don’t and PACE was merged with the Steel Workers about a year ago. And that’s reflected I think in your resolution that says USW/PACE. So it’s the same group, it’s just a slightly different name.

Councilman Carmody: Thank you Mr. Chairman. In the body of the resolution, it references, and again, that’s actually what y’all’s work is, that y’all work with unions in Louisiana, it references Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, and New Orleans. And in those situations all they have is the meet and confer authority? They don’t have collective bargaining?

Mr. Lurye: They have meet and confer for the city workers in New Orleans, meet and confer I believe in Lake Charles, meet and confer for the city workers in Baton Rouge. That’s correct.

Councilman Carmody: So, that’s all they have? They don’t have collective bargaining.

Mr. Lurye: Those city workers do not have collective bargaining. Now there are other public employees who do. And obviously the teachers do, depending on the particular parish. Sewerage and Water Board employees I believe in St. Bernard Parish did. So, there are, and there are state employees as well who have collective bargaining. Mr. Mayor, I know that this gentlemen and the other speakers have talked about, but that is all they’re really seeking is to meet and confer I guess with the administration, and I would appreciate your thoughts on that, because again, it doesn’t sound like that they’re asking for or would seek the process for collective bargaining, but as I appreciate it, this would be the first step in doing that, if at some point down the road, they decided to do it.

Mayor Hightower: Thank you Mr. Chairman. If at some point, I think you’re right. That it would be the first step. But the meet and confer again, the reason that I vetoed it the last time was that I give all city employees, I am preferable to organization. Because it means that from a management standpoint, I get to meet with a whole lot less people and decisions are made quickly with smaller groups, and we all understand that that’s a whole lot easier to do. I meet with Michael Carter and Jaime Touchet and have met with their predecessors anytime, anytime they call. And I think both of them stood here today and told you that we’ve got a good working relationship, and that’s it’s been beneficial. Same thing with the former PACE, now USW. I’ve met with James Robinson on many occasions when he was the elected leader of the group, have not met with Mr. Robbins. We have not met, has not asked to meet. But we do informally recognize USW, just like we informally recognize police and just like we informally recognize fire. As a matter of fact, USW sends representatives with employees to disciplinary conferences. And they’re certainly not asked to leave, they’re welcomed in there. Their input is certainly taken, and again I can look back on some of the meetings I had with Mr. Robinson representing PACE at the time. Some of the things that were concerns to the employees were easy to do. Easy to do. Something that you and I and most of us wouldn’t recognize that were little things to the guys. Ice in the water buckets, or whatever it may be, you know on the trucks. You know and those things are easily taken care of. So there are going to be things that fire and police ask for, that they don’t get. And there are going to be things that city workers ask for, that they don’t get, either because we don’t think that it’s the right thing to do, or there is no dollars to cover the cost of whatever the request may be. But again, I certainly welcome the situation that we have now with police and fire has worked well. And again, I think you heard from both leaders that it has worked well, and police and fire personnel have benefited, and I think ultimately the citizens of Shreveport have benefited. And I look forward to the same relationship with Mr. Robbins or whoever the elected leadership may be of USW on the same ground.

Councilman Walford: If I may address the mayor, a couple of questions?

Councilman Lester: Go ahead. Councilman Walford you have the floor.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Mayor, does the police union have an exclusive recognition from the council?

Mayor Hightower: No they don’t

Councilman Walford: Does the fire?

Mayor Hightower: No.

Councilman Walford: So neither one.

Mayor Hightower: No.

Councilman Walford: But they still can meet and confer?

Mayor Hightower: Correct.

Councilman Walford: Okay, thank you Mr. Mayor. I’ve read over this resolution a number of times. And to be very honest with you, I think it’s a very bad resolution. I will say that the sponsor has not talked to me, has not come to me with any of this. And it says here, whereas the city council has determined that many deficiencies and enhancements and productivity could be achieved by recognizing PACE/USW. But I’ve been given nothing to support that. I’ve got quite a list of departments that would be included and yet, I’ve only heard from personnel from two departments. Says whereas this determination is supported by favorable experiences with the unionized workforce in the cities of Baton Rouge, Lake Charles and New Orleans. But I’ve been given nothing to support that. The only favorable I’ve heard is from Mr. Lurye’s perspective. Not that I doubt Mr. Lurye, but he obviously comes from one side of the argument. I’m going to go back to the Mayor again, if I can Mr. Chairman. In our Charter, it says in 14.07v that in the disciplinary hearings, employees have the right to counsel. Did I understand right that USW/PACE is welcomed in those hearings with the employees? Is that what you were referring to in the disciplinary hearings, etc.?

Mayor Hightower: That has been our practice sine PACE came on the scene two years ago, yes.

Councilman Walford: And makes reference to meeting with USW/PACE to resolve employee workplace issues and to provide for equitable and feasible adjustments for differences which may arise in the workplace provided that funds are available to protect and serve the public interest. And I think that gets pretty subjective there. Who determines if those funds are available? So, I have a lot of questions in the resolution itself and I am a little disappointed that we didn’t get better information. That’ll do Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

.Councilman Lester: Thank you. I would like to say something as the maker of this particular legislation. This is the same ostensibly the same resolution that was passed by this council two years ago. Almost the language, the language is almost identical. Now, as I recall, Councilman Walford did not support that then, and it sounds like he’s not supporting it now. And that is his choice. I mean none of us would abridge anyone’s right to their opinion and their vote and things of that nature. But you know, the fact of the matter is, you know this is a bad resolution, I would think not. I think it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to accomplish which is to give the city workers the right to confer with the Administration. And let me say this for what it’s worth, I understand and I appreciate everything that the Mayor has said. And he is right. This Mayor has had an open door to the representatives from PACE. He is 100% accurate. The unfortunate party is when you filter away from this building, out to where the city workers are actually working and in the department head situation, and in the manager’s situation, everyone does not have this Mayor’s spirit of compromise or the open door policy. And more often that not, what happens is the city workers are told that well, I could deal with you, but because you’re not recognized under code blah, blah, blah, I can’t do it. And so it becomes a situation like one of the labor folks said a few minutes ago, where there is disparate treatment depending on the heart and mind of the managers. If I feel like dealing with you today, I’ll deal with you today, if I don’t, feel like dealing with you today, then I don’t. If streets and drainage wants to deal with the issue, they do. Human Resources may not. They might deal with something in Community Development, but Finance does not. The whole point of legislation is to ameliorate the situation and come up with one policy across the board. We can talk about bad resolutions, we could talk about problems, obviously if any of the Council Members have a problem with this resolution or the language, it’s been on for at least two weeks, they could have offered an amendment to it. If that was their desire, because any of us have the ability to do that. We could talk about bad resolutions and bad pieces of paper and things of that nature, I mean, you know we could make references to promises made by all of us. And I’ll say this, and I’ll leave it alone, when many of us ran for office, we came and we sat down with folks for Central Trade and Labor and different other groups. And they asked us several questions. One of the questions that they asked us was, if it comes down to supporting efforts of the city workers to organize and unionize, will you support it? They put it on a piece of paper and put our names on it, and if you supported it, you signed your name. Those that didn’t, didn’t sign their names. Now there are seven of us up here. There are several of us that signed that piece of paper saying yes, we would support the city workers in their efforts to organize. And of that group, some of us have voted yes, and some of us have voted no. So, if we can’t trust that when you need the support of the city workers in time for an election, and you sign your name, yes, and then turn around and they need you, land you vote no. I mean, it doesn’t matter what a resolution says. It doesn’t matter what -- how bad that particular piece of paper is. If your heart is not in the right place, it’s not. If you believe in what these folks are trying to do, you do and if you don’t, but lets not say that I have problems with the resolutions or I have problems with the language. It’s very simple. Those that believe in what these workers are trying to do will vote yes. Those that don’t believe in what the workers are doing will vote no. And we will move on. They’re not going to strike. They’re not going to leave here and turn this building over. These folks are going to go back t what they do everyday, which is getting up early, working late and making us look very good.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman you really said what I was going to say, and I just urge all of our colleagues, that if there is a problem with the resolution, then I guess the correct motion would be to postpone till that person could read it again. But I think from February 14^th, it was on the agenda on February 14^th. You know I’ve been blasted one or two times myself when folks tell me, well it’s been on there, you could have read it. So, I know how it feels. But I would suggest to us that we have to make some decisions. I think what was said today clarifies any questions that I had and that’s why I called up different individuals here to get those questions answered. Because I don’t want to leave voting no, because I didn’t understand. I’d rather vote no, because I don’t agree with it, but I don’t want to vote no out of ignorance. I’d rather vote no out of being informed, and it’s just not what I want to do. And if it were me, I would tell you. You know some people may enjoy the applause, and all of that. I don’t really need that. And if I were against you, I would tell you, ‘you know, I’m sorry, I can’t help you, but philosophically, I’ve got a different belief about what should be happening, and I hope you all, -- you know if you’re mad at me, I’m sorry and I’d move on. But I didn’t want to come and in case any of you live in my district, which I know some of you do, I don’t want to offer you a disservice, by saying well I’m looking at it, but I’m not prepared. You elected me to come to every meeting prepared. And I would suggest that we come today to be prepared. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Motion fails by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Walford, Carmody, and Hogan. 3. Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Green, and Jackson. 3. Out of the Chamber: Councilwoman Robertson. 1.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure the prevailing side has the right to bring the matter up for reconsideration? Correct?

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Carmody: And the prevailing side in this instance is a 3 No votes?

Councilman Jackson: No. I would think you don’t have a prevailing side in the case of a tie.

Councilman Green: There is a prevailing side.

Councilman Carmody: It’s the No votes, because it fails, it would be the prevailing side. Okay. I just wanted to know that. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

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. 39 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS RECEIVED ON IFB #06-032, 2006 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM PHASE B-2 AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, five (5) bids were received as a result of solicitations for 2006 Sidewalk Repair Program Phase B-2, IFB #06-032; and;

WHEREAS, the City has rejected these bids because they are 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 #06-032 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 Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Out of the Chamber: Councilwoman Robertson. 1.

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION

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

The Clerk read the following

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.

WHEREAS, Mr. Ken Krefft has requested that Anniston Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and Patton Avenue be dedicated in honor of Pope John Paul II.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the Mayor on behalf of the City is authorized to dedicate Anniston Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and Patton Avenue in honor of Pope John Paul II.

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

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

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

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.

WHEREAS, funds have been appropriated out of the Statewide Flood Control Construction Program as authorized by the provisions of Title 38 of the LSA R.S. of 1950, as amended to finance flood control improvements projects under the direct administration of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD); and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has requested an appropriation of said funds to finance a portion of a flood control improvement project consisting of a 6’ x 10’ RCB, 2 - 60” diameter RCPs and catch basins (CB-08). The project begins at Sand Beach Bayou and ends at the intersection of Youree Drive and Southfield Road. The proposed 6’ x 10’ RCB is located on the west side of Youree Drive and is approximately 2500 feet in length, and

WHEREAS, the DOTD is agreeable to the implementation of this proposed improvement and desires to cooperate with the City of Shreveport as provided in the agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana in due, legal, and regular session convened, that Keith Hightower, Mayor, be and he is hereby authorized and empowered to execute on behalf of the City of Shreveport a re-instatement agreement with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, in a form essentially as attached, concerning Broadmoor Area “Youree Drive” Flood Control Improvements (S.P.N. 576-09-0020.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or term of this resolution or 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 Carmody, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Out of the Chamber: Councilwoman Robertson. 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.

BY: COUNCILMAN JACKSON

WHEREAS, Southern University Office of Student Activities will present Judi Ann Mason’s play “Resurrection,” a one-act play which will feature local actors and actresses from the Shreveport area along with the Galilee Baptist Church Chancel Choir, Orchesis Dance Company from Grambling State University, and Kappa Kappa Psi Fraternity; and

WHEREAS, Southern University needs to borrow choral risers from the city to accommodate 80 choir members for the production of this play on March 30, 2006, at the Stand Theater; and

WHEREAS, City Code Section 62-92(a) provides for an educational waiver for building fee rentals in reciprocation for services and benefits provided to the city by Southern University. Therefore, it is in the public interest and it serves a public purpose for the City to donate the use of the choral risers.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that it authorizes the donation of the use of city owned choral risers to Southern University to produce a play.

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 Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 6. Out of the Chamber: Councilwoman Robertson. 1.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, at this time, I’d like to move to suspend the rules to reconsider item No. 28.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to suspend the rules to reconsider Resolution No. 28 of 2006.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, we’re voting now on whether or not we want to suspend the rules, is that correct?

Councilman Lester: Correct.

Councilman Jackson: And what vote does it take to suspend the rules?

Ms. Glass: 5.

Councilman Jackson: Okay.

Councilman Lester: Okay.

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

Councilman Walford: Now I’d make a motion to reconsider item no. 28.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to reconsider Resolution No. 28 of 2006.

Councilman Jackson: Well, actually Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. Obviously we are now at the point were we engage in this level of politics of Councilmen, my two colleagues on the left end down there, I guess for the purpose of Councilwoman Robertson, but I think the appropriate and it’s not in our rules to judge another person’s motive, so let me in the context of being as general as I can, I would think that the purpose for reconsideration was that a person who was moving to reconsider, was reconsidering it themselves. And not a simple sophomoric political scenario, where they want to register whatever it is they want to register, because it’s clear. Your vote registered where you were. So, I don’t know perhaps what we are doing, and I’m not asking for a comment in response, but I will say this to city workers. That what you are about to witness right now is a tragedy of this particular body where we don’t take care of the things that are significant and important, but we do take out unnecessary time to deal with the things that mean very little that have absolutely zero significance to the city. And when we ought to be paying close attention and being very serious about the responsibility and the stewardship responsibility, we have, we would rather do this than to move forward and do something that was positive and affects people. What we see now, not only is it petty, but it’s silly, and I would urge my colleagues who are here, if we need to lose a quorum, perhaps what we need to do is lose a quorum, because I refuse to be a part of foolishness, when we are talking about the lives and quality of lives of people in this Chamber. A few minutes ago and I apologize Mr. Chairman, but this infuriates me. That we would rather concentrate and spend our time and the taxpayers’ money for stupidity. Is the only way I can call it is what it is, in my perception, and that is stupidity. The things that really matter, we don’t weigh in on. We major in our minors, and we minor in the major things. And I think that we owe this city an apology for the kind of prevarication of ignorance that continues to go on every time we have a meeting like this, and I just think that this is a new low. There is a saying Mr. Chairman since I got time, I’m going to talk. There is a saying, that if you climb mountains, the mountain climbers have this thing that they must do. And that is that they have to get above, if they’re going to sleep and stay, there is a line that they call the snake line. And if you get above the snake line, it’s an altitude above which snakes cannot exist. And so what happens is every mountain climber recognizes that in order to sleep without danger and fear, you have to do so above the snake line. I would suggest to us my colleagues, brothers and sisters, councilmen, that we would try to have meetings above the snake line. That we would try to take care of the city’s business somewhere above the snake line because this to me is one of those examples of how we a few minutes ago, were nonchalant in what we were doing that had to do with the lives of people and their concern and now with a nearly empty Chamber, we’d rather play and engage in these gamesmanship. I guess that’s what you want to call it, that may be giving it too much credit. But to engage in this to me Mr. Chairman, I am repulsed personally that we could stoop to this particular level, and while I want to apologize to the people who live in my district, I ain’t going to participate in it.

Councilman Lester: I will say this Councilman Jackson, before you leave, I want him to hear this. You know, this is the second time that we’ve voted on this measure, i.e., the city workers. Two of the folks that are moving to reconsider have been remarkably consistent in their lack of support for the measure. They voted no today, they voted no a year ago, and so, they voted no today. And for now after the city workers have seen what the record is, for us to then come back and then decide well, I want to reconsider, you know that’s being less than honest, that’s being less than a Statesman. We can sit here and engage in political hyperbolae and back biting and the whole nine yards, but at the end of the day, the facts are what the facts are. If you supported this measure, you supported it, if you don’t, you don’t. And if you’re fine with that, you’re fine with that. But for you to vote no, 5 minutes ago, without any debate, and decided that you wanted to reconsider the measure, when there is nothing that says you are going reconsider your position, because your position has been clear. Don’t insult the intelligence of our constituents, don’t insult the intelligence of our city workers and don’t insult the intelligence of those of your council colleagues.

Councilman Walford: I tell you what Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that motion. I thought perhaps you wanted the full council to vote, but I will withdraw my motion.

Councilman Carmody: I’m sorry, Mr. Green was trying to convey some information to you, I didn’t mean to interrupt you.

Councilman Lester: No, no, we’re finished. I’m finished. Councilman Carmody, you have the floor.

Councilman Carmody: I don’t think there is a motion on the floor.

Councilman Lester, Okay, lets move on. That motion has been withdrawn.

Councilman Jackson: Okay, I just wanted to see Mr. Chairman if we were still in discussion, I wanted to find out, cause one of our colleagues said, that they never been talked to, and as I appreciate it, people from this group had been tried to talk to our colleague from District B --

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe we have a motion on the floor, so I’d call a Point of Order at this time.

Councilman Lester: Okay, a Point of Order has been called.

Councilman Jackson: What’s the Point of Order again? I didn’t hear it.

Councilman Walford: There is no motion on the floor Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: Councilman Walford is correct, the motion to reconsider has been withdrawn, therefore we are going back to our regular meeting agenda. Mr. Thompson?

The Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION 40 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Section 3 of Ordinance No. 166 of 2005, the 2006 Capital Improvements Budget, states that the Mayor is not authorized to execute contracts or other legal instruments to expend the funds appropriated for the Convention Center Hotel project without first obtaining the City Council’s approval by resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor desires to have the authority to execute a contract for the purchase of food service equipment for the Convention Center Hotel, pursuant to IFB-06-029, to National Repair Service, Inc./Pendleton Products, LLC, who was the low bidder and met all City requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in legal session convened, that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute said contract for food service equipment on behalf of the City.

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 to be severable.

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

Motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to postpone.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, what would be the reason for postponing. I would think that because we’re under a time constraint on getting some food service into the convention center that it --

Councilman Jackson: Nobody ever talked to me about Mr. Chairman.

Councilwoman Robertson: Is this for the hotel?

Councilman Lester: Yes.

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

Mayor Hightower: Mr. Chairman, I would ask someone on the prevailing side to take a re-look at this issue. We’re trying desperately to get this hotel open by November 15^th. The food service items have been bid. The low bidder was a local minority contractor, that is in the process of getting the equipment ordered and shipped to Shreveport, and installed, and time is of the essence here if we’re going to open this hotel by November the 15^th. So, I would ask that somebody would move to reconsider. Postponing doesn’t change the outcome of the bid. We’re not going to re-bid it, it came in budget, so I see absolutely zero reason to postpone this issue.

Councilman Jackson: Mr. Chairman, one of the things I said just a few minutes ago, was that --

Councilman Walford: Point of Order Mr. Chairman. We don’t have a motion on the floor.

Councilman Lester: Okay. That’s correct. No, there is no motion on the floor.

Councilman Jackson: Could you recognize me like you recognized the Mayor?

Councilman Lester: Well, hold on a second. What I’m going to do is --

Councilman Jackson: I was just wondering Mr. Walford, you missed that. The Mayor was talking and we didn’t have a motion on the floor.

Councilman Lester: Okay, I want to take back control. Mr. Thompson, we’re at item 41.

The Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 41 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, Section 3 of Ordinance No. 166 of 2005, the 2006 Capital Improvements Budget, states that the Mayor is not authorized to execute contracts or other legal instruments to expend the funds appropriated for the Convention Center Hotel project without first obtaining the City Council’s approval by resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Mayor desires to have the authority to execute Change Order Number Two to the contract with Walton Construction Company for the construction of the Convention Center Hotel.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in legal session convened, that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute said Change Order Number Two on behalf of the City.

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 to be severable.

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

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

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, I was asked this morning by a constituent to verify that they had said that they attended two functions and unfortunately it was on days when it was raining. And they had asked that I please ask at today’s meeting whether or not there would be a change order or some additional expenditure approved to provide a covered walkway from the elevator from the parking garage to the skywalk, because they had at each time, they came out drenched like a rat walking into the convention center, and then had to fight it getting back to the elevator. And I told them I would certainly ask. But I don’t see it included in this particular change order.

Councilman Walford: This is for the hotel.

Mayor Hightower: Yeah, it is coming. It’s been designed and it is coming.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

RESOLUTION NO. 42 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR UTILITY SERVITUDES IN THE NORRIS FERRY CROSSING 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 utility servitudes in Section 29 (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 utility servitudes 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 Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

RESOLUTION NO. 43 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR BRIDGEWATER AVENUE, FAIRWOODS DRIVE, NEWBERRY LANE, TORREY PINE LANE, SHADED WILLOW LANE, AND WOODBERRY LANE IN THE PROVENANCE PHASE I –UNIT B, 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 Bridgewater Avenue, Fairwoods Drive, Newberry Lane, Torrey Pine Lane, Shaded willow Lane, and Woodberry Lane 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 Bridgewater Avenue, Fairwoods Drive, Newberry Lane, Torrey Pine Lane, Shaded willow Lane, and Woodberry Lane 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.

The Clerk read the following:

Amendment No. 1 to Resolution No. 43 of 2006

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

Add Winterberry Lane dedication to the Resolution.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

Motion by Councilman Robertson , seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt Resolution No. 43 of 2006 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

RESOLUTION NO. 44 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR CANA DRIVE IN THE ROBINSON ACRES UNIT 7, 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 Cana Drive in Section 7, (T16N-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 Cana Drive 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 Hogan, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

RESOLUTION NO. 45 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVITUDE IN THE WKMC PROGRESSIVE CARE SUBDIVISION, 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 a sanitary sewer servitude in Section 11 (T17N-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 a sanitary sewer servitude 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 Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

RESOLUTION NO. 50 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION FOR UTILITY SERVITUDES IN THE NORTHPOINTE SUBDIVISION, AND 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 a utility servitudes in Section 17 (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 a utility servitudes be recorded in the official records of the Clerk of 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 Carmody, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

RESOLUTION NO. 51 OF 2006

A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS RECEIVED ON IFB #06-030, CONSTRUCTION OF MILAM STREET PARKING STRUCTURE, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, two (2) bids were received as a result of solicitations for Construction of Milam Street Parking Structure, IFB #06-030 and;

WHEREAS, the City has rejected these bids because they are 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 #06-030 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 Walford, seconded by Councilman Carmody to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS (Not to be adopted prior April 11, 2006)

1. Resolution No. 46 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the donation of Shreveport Police Department Property (Icie) and otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 47 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute grant documents with the LA Highway Safety Commission (LHSC) for “100 days of Summer Heat”, and otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Resolution No. 48 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute grant documents with the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and otherwise provide with respect thereto.

4. Resolution No. 49 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a cooperative endeavor agreement between the City of Shreveport and the Friends of the Barnwell, Inc., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Carmody to introduce Resolution No(s). 46, 47, 48, 49 of 2006 to lay over until April 11, 2006 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (Not to be adopted prior April 11, 2006)

1. Ordinance No. 29 of 2006: An ordinance closing and abandoning all of the remaining alleyway located in the Crowder Subdivision bordered by Stevens and Creswell Street and south of Jordan Street in the NW /4 of Section 6 (T17N-R13W), Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford)

2. Ordinance No. 30 of 2006: An ordinance closing and abandoning the 20 foot-wide alleyway located between Walnut and Dove Streets Bounded by Sycamore Street and Norma Avenue in the Currie Subdivision in the NE /4 of Section 02 (T17N-R14W), Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

3. Ordinance No. 31 of 2006: An ordinance amending the 2006 General Fund Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance No. 32 of 2006: An ordinance amending the 2006 Budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 33 of 2006: An ordinance to amend Section 10-44 of the City of Shreveport, Code of Ordinances relative to alcoholic beverages and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to introduce Ordinance No(s). 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of 2006 to lay over until April 11, 2006 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

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

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.

Having passed first reading on March 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 Green, seconded by Councilman Walford. The Clerk read the following amendment:

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 24 of 2006,

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Transfer from General Fund by $50,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Administration – Contractual Services by $50,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Green. to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 24 of 2006. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Green. to adopt Ordinance No. 24 of 2006 as amended.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Chairman, as I read over this, I was not clear on one thing. There’ll be a federal funds match for something to go along with this. Could you elaborate on that for just a moment or who would be the person?

Councilman Lester: Ms. Moore would be the proper person to deal with that. Good afternoon Ms. Moore. Councilman Hogan has a question about item 24, which is amending the 2006 Budget for Community Development Special Revenue Fund.

Councilman Hogan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Ms. Moore. I understand there is supposed to be a federal funds match on this with this amendment for the extra assistant attorney to oversee the Allendale project or something like that. Could you explain to me --

Ms. Moore: What? The attorney?

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, if I may. This amendment transfers additional funds from the General Fund to the Community Development to complete the Allendale Total Commitment Master Plan by allocating funds needed for administrative costs.

Councilman Lester: Right. The measure that you’re speaking of --

Councilman Hogan: The amendment, excuse me, the amendment is what the question was, which we’ve already voted on. I apologize. But there is a companion amendment to that as well up for introduction, No. 31.

Councilman Lester: Right.

Councilman Hogan: And it’s unclear to me if the attorney that’s going to be hired with this $50,000, is going to work for Community Development in general, or just on this project.

Ms. Moore: No, in general. We have various projects that require legal attention that we hire outside attorneys for, that has cost us exuberant costs over the last few years. So this is what the cost is for.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, this $50,000 is not for the attorney.

Councilman Hogan: On the amendment.

Councilman Lester: The amendment is for Total Commitment. That is on 24. And 31 which is for introduction, that’s the General Fund Budget amendment that puts the money into Community Development.

Mr. Dark: Actually, it doesn’t. It puts money in the City Attorney’s office with the idea that that person would work for Community Development.

Councilman Lester: Right, and the other $50,000 is coming from the General Fund that comes into item 24. They are two different things that are going on.

Councilman Hogan: Somewhere it did say the General Fund Reserve. Is that right?

Councilman Lester: Correct.

Councilman Hogan: Okay, I guess I was a little uncomfortable with this whole thing, because I had not heard from Community Development. I wasn’t sure. I had never heard for a need for an assistant attorney, so I wasn’t clear on if you needed it or requested it or whose idea it was.

Councilman Lester: Councilman, I can also speak to that issue. If you can recall when we were dealing with a lot of those property standard issues, one of the things that we discussed was a need to have someone fulltime dealing with property standards violations. Because many of the folks down in Shreveport City Court, their docket is so busy dealing with the things that our Police Department sends to us, that they don’t have the time to make Code Enforcement issues a priority. One of the other problems that has happened in Code Enforcement just as an example is that when they start, because we have some new changes in the law. As we start the process to deal with those violators, many people have frustrated our efforts to deal with them. The perfect example is the issue on I’m not going to call the address, but I’ll just say it’s at the corner of Elvis Presley and Texas Avenue. And those efforts have been frustrated because our staff doesn’t have the legal expertise to match the private folks that are these big problems that have their own lawyers. So by hiring someone that is strictly a City Attorney for Community Development, that person will deal with issues as it relates to the Code Enforcement issues as a prosecutor’s standpoint. They will also help us deal with some of the problems that we are having in our loan collection issues in terms of getting some things on that. Community Development has probably as many contract as any other department in the city, DOS included, and not to mention over the last year, they spent over $100,000 in outside legal counsel, and this will allow us to -- so clearly the need is there. But by spending $50,000, you can get more bang for that buck and have someone do a multiplicity of things in terms of what Community Development needs. Does that answer --

Councilwoman Robertson: Mr. Chairman, I have read the (inaudible) report that I had received from Mr. Theron’s committee, and a lot of the issues in there as to what y’all are having to look at in Community Development, you needed some extra help in that case. Because there were some things that were kinda shady, not really shady issues, but they were gray areas, because y’all didn’t have the manpower to look up some of the ownerships of some of the properties and things like that, title searches and all. And I think that would be a great help.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

2. 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 to be adopted prior April 11, 2006)

Having passed first reading on March 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 Green to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

Councilman Hogan: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to vote to reconsider the bid for the food service equipment. Mr. Thompson, can you help me? What number was that?

Mr. Thompson: 40.

Councilman Hogan: Right, I’d like to make a motion to reconsider Resolution 40.

Motion by Councilman Hogan to reconsider Resolution No. 40.

Councilman Walford: Point of Order. Shouldn’t the motion be to suspend the rules first to reconsider since we’re not at that on the agenda.

Councilman Hogan: I beg your pardon. I restate my motion.

Councilman Walford: If that is your motion, I’ll second it.

Councilman Lester: Okay, there is a motion by Councilman Hogan to reconsider item 40.

Motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Walford to suspend the rules in order to reconsider Resolution No. 40. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green and Hogan. 5. Nays: Councilmen Lester and Jackson. 2.

Motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Walford to reconsider Resolution No. 40.

Councilman Lester: Okay, there is a motion to reconsider item 40. The motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Walford. Councilwoman Robertson.

Councilwoman Robertson: Okay, this is the one that we had postponed?

Councilman Lester: Yes.

Councilwoman Robertson: Okay, and now you’re bringing it back up to vote on it?

Councilman Lester: As I appreciate it, the motion is to consider item 40,

Councilman Walford: Again.

Councilman Jackson: Reconsider.

Councilman Lester: Right to vote on it. So, if you vote yes, you will be voting yes on item 40.

Mr. Thompson: No, you’ll be reconsidering.

Councilman Walford: To reconsider and then we’ll have a motion.

Councilman Jackson: This is a vote to reconsider.

Councilman Lester: You’re correct. I’m one motion ahead.

Councilwoman Robertson: Could the Clerk or Bea or someone -- what was the vote to postpone prior?

Mrs. Johnson: I can get it for you, just a moment. 5-2.

Councilman Walford: 5-2.

Councilman Lester: And in order to reconsider, does that take a two-thirds vote?

Mr. Thompson: We’ve already -- no, it takes 4 votes.

Councilman Lester: It takes 4 votes to reconsider.

Mr. Thompson: It takes 5 votes to suspend the rules and 4 votes to reconsider.

Councilwoman Walford: Mr. Chairman, we have no lights.

Mrs. Johnson: You need lights?

Councilman Lester: Yes we need lights. So, the motion is to reconsider item 40. So, if you want to reconsider item 40, vote yes, if you don’t vote no. Any other questions?

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

Motion by Councilman Hogan, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt Resolution No. 40 of 2006. Motion fails by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Lester, Carmody, Green, and Jackson. 4. Ayes: Councilmen Walford, Robertson, Hogan. 3.

3. 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)

Having passed first reading on March 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 Jackson , seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

4. 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)

Having passed first reading on March 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 Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

5. Ordinance No. 27 of 2006: ZONING C-13-06: 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)

Having passed first reading on March 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 Jackson, seconded by Councilman Green to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

6. Ordinance No. 208 of 2006: ZONING – C-89-05: 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 – March 14, 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 Walford to postpone.

Councilwoman Robertson: Is Mr. Strong ? No, he’s gone, okay.

Councilwoman Lester: Do you want to ask some questions about this particular item?

Councilwoman Robertson: Yeah, but that’s okay.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Robertson, Green, Hogan, and Jackson. 7.

The adopted ordinances and amendments follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 24 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2006 BUDGET FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

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

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2006 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, to adjust appropriations, reflect current revenue estimates 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. 167 of 2005, the 2006 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, is hereby amended as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Under "2005 and Prior-Year Funds":

Increase Prior-Year CDBG Entitlement by $1,600,000.

Increase Prior-Year HOME Program Income by $300,000.

Increase Prior-Year HOPE Program Income by $30,000.

Decrease Prior-Year WIA Grants by $294,400.

Increase Prior-Year SHMA Program Income by $18,000.

Increase Prior-Year Section 108 (SICED) by $864,100.

Increase Prior-Year EDI Grant by $37,100.

Increase Prior-Year Business Development Prog. Income by $120,000.

Decrease Prior-Year State STEPS Grant by $37,300.

Decrease Prior-Year HOPE ADDI Grant by $55,000.

Increase Prior-Year FNMA Grant by $383,400.

Appropriate Prior-Year HOME Entitlement at $2,167,000.

Appropriate Prior-Year CHDO at $821,000.

Appropriate Prior-Year National Emergency Grant at $474,300.

Appropriate Prior-Year Housing Program Income at $300,000.

Under "Fiscal Year 2006 Funds":

Decrease CDBG Entitlement by $145,100.

Decrease HOME Entitlement by $100,000.

Decrease HOME ADDI Grant by $22,500.

Decrease Federal Emergency Shelter by $700.

Appropriate Paint Your Heart Out - Private Donations at $5,000.

Appropriate State STEPS Grant at $70,000.

Appropriate WIA Grant at $800,000.

Appropriate National Emergency Grant at $700,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Under "Prior-Year Funds":

Increase EDI Grant by $37,100.

Increase SICED Grant by $1,239,000.

Increase HOME Program Income by $300,000.

Increase HOPE III Program Income by $30,000.

Decrease HOPE ADDI by $55,000.

Appropriate Houding Program Income at $300,000.

Appropriate HOME Programs at $2,167,000.

Decrease WIA by $294,400.

Appropriate National Emergency Grant at $474,300.

Increase SHMA Program Income by $18,000.

Increase Business Development Program Income by $120,000.

Increase Neighborhood Recovery Program by $383,400.

Increase Total Commitment Program by $469,000.

Decrease State STEPS Grant by $37,300.

Appropriate CHDO at $821,000.

Appropriate Special Projects at $506,000.

Appropriate Codes Enforcement Demolition at $224,000.

Under "2006 Revenues":

Add the wording ("includes $26,000 of Prior-Year revenues").

In Administration, increase Personal Services by $6,800. Decrease Materials and Supplies by $2,000 and Contractual Services by $10,000.

Decrease Federal ESG by $700.

Decrease Special Projects by $401,600.

Appropriate Public Services at $400,000.

In Housing and Business Development, increase Personal Services by $1,700. Decrease Materials and Supplies by $200 and Contractual Services by $5,900.

Decrease Housing Program by $143,500.

Decrease HOME Program by $360,900.

Decrease HOPE ADDI by $22,500.

Appropriate CHDO at $205,500.

Appropriate CHDO Operating at $65,000.

Appropriate Paint Your Heart Out - Private Donations at $5,000.

In Workforce Development, appropriate WIA Grants at $800,000, State STEPS Grant at $70,000 and National Emergency Grant at $700,000.

In Codes Enforcement, increase Other Charges by $40,000 and Improvements and Equipment by $26,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

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

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

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 24 of 2006,

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Increase Transfer from General Fund by $50,000.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Increase Administration – Contractual Services by $50,000.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

____________________________________

Calvin Ben Lester, Jr., Chairman

____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 25 OF 2006

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 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

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 9, 10, and 11, Tuxedo Park Addition, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, located on the SW corner of Fairfield Avenue and Boulevard, be and the same is hereby changed 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.

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 a revised plan to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. Any significant changes or additions shall require further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. Bed and breakfast approval shall be for 4 bedrooms/up to 8 guests, and shall be limited to the main house only.

3. Group counseling approval shall be for a maximum of 5 clients at one time. Counseling shall be conducted in the office space to be located in the lower portion of detached garage. Upper portion of said detached garage (garage apartment) shall be used as living quarters for owner’s family member.

4. Hours of one-on-one counseling shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with group counseling limited to two days a week (Tuesday & Thursday) from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

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.

____________________________________

Calvin Ben Lester, Jr., Chairman

____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 26 OF 2006

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 ARCHER AVENUE AND EAST KINGS HIGHWAY, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO B-1-E, BUFFER BUSINESS/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT, LIMITED TO “A SPA, SALON, AND BOUTIQUE”, 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 1 and 2 Re-subdivision of Plot 1, Broadmoor Subdivision, Unit No. 1, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, located on the southeast corner of Archer Avenue and East Kings Highway, be the same is hereby changed from B-1, Buffer Business District, to B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended Use District, limited “to a spa, salon and boutique”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. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

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.

____________________________________

Calvin Ben Lester, Jr., Chairman

____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

ORDINANCE NO. 27 OF 2006

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 HEARNE AVENUE AND WEST COLLEGE STREET, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-2, SUBURBAN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, TO R-2-E, SUBURBAN, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT, LIMITED TO “A FLOWER 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 Lots 1, 2, 3 & E/2 of Lot 4 Oakside Subdivision, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, located on the SW corner of Hearne Avenue and West College Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from R-2, Suburban Multi-Family Residence District to R-2-E, Suburban, Multi-Family Residence Extended District, limited to “a flower shop”, only.

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

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

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

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

____________________________________ ____________________________________

Calvin Ben Lester, Jr., Chairman Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council

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)

3. 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) (Remanded to MPC March 14,, 2006)

Mr. Thompson: Yes, we have three items on the table and there’s been no indication that they would be removed.

Councilman Carmody: Mr. Chairman, just an update though. On Item No. 3, I just wanted to commend the owners of the property in working with the Metropolitan Planning Commission and I look forward to supporting it’s reconsideration by Council when it’s brought back before us. Thank you.

NEW BUSINESS:

ABO APPEAL: Mr. Richard Angelina, 340 Prospect, Shreveport, LA (Rock’s Bottom of the 9^th, 235 Wall Street, Shreveport. LA) (B/Walford) Decision rendered – March 27, 2006

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES: None.

CLERK’S REPORT: None

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:38 p.m.

____________________________________

Calvin Ben Lester, Jr., Chairman

____________________________________

Arthur G. Thompson, Clerk of Council