CC 3827

02 19 07

Council Proceedings of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana

February 13, 2007

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana was called to order by Chairman Monty Walford at 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, February 13, 2007, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilwoman Bowman.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Wooley.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester (Arrived at 3:04 p.m.), Walford, Long, Wooley, Shyne, Webb and Bowman. 7. Absent: None.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Wooley to approve the minutes of the Administrative Conference, Monday, January 22, 2007and City Council Meeting, Tuesday, January 23, 2007. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Shyne, Webb and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

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

Councilman Walford: As the Mayor’s representative, do you have any distinguished guests for us Mr. Dark?

Mr. Dark: Mr. Chair, I think a little bit later in your agenda, you’ll have a presentation from the 4-H folks, and they were honored by the Mayor just a few minutes ago. He’ll be down in just a couple of minutes. I do know that he and I both want to reiterate what was said yesterday to Council about all the business about the flag controversy over the weekend, and we believe we’ve corrected that. We certainly apologize for everything that happened there and we will make sure that that does not occur again.

Councilman Walford: Alright, thank you very much. Do I understand, are you asking to wait for the presentation with the 4-H or shall we - - - ?

Mr. Dark: No, feel free to proceed.

Councilman Walford: Alright. Does any Council Member have a distinguished guest at this time? If not - - -

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman, I saw a distinguished attorney just come in. I don’t know whether he wants to be recognized or not. That’s Attorney Jones. He’s a distinguished Shreveporter. We’re so happy to have you down gracing us with your presence.

Councilman Walford: But did you notice when you first said that, that Marshall was looking down. And now you’ve made him turn red. The camera can’t see. But at this time I would like to ask Ms. Louise McDonald to come forward and if you would make your presentation for the 4-H Club.

Ms. McDonald: Yes sir, and thank you and good afternoon to all the City Council Members. I’m Louise McDonald with the 4-H Club Agents here in Caddo Parish, and I have here with me today a group of young people and their parents, I’m going to ask them to stand. I also have my co-worker, Ms. Lola Shuttleworth is with us. We have a group, one young lady from Captain Shreve, Cambria, we have Jessica Taylor from Huntington, Elizabeth Huber a her brother Phillip Huber from Shreveport Christian Academy, their mom Mrs. Huber, and Jessica Long, and Stephanie Kendricks from Magnet. I’m going to ask Jessica Taylor if she will come up and do our presentation.

Ms. Taylor: On behalf of the LSU AG Center, the Caddo 4-Hers, we proudly present you with these special cookies that we made. And we thank you for all your support.

Councilman Shyne: I’ll come around and accept those.

Councilman Walford: You’ll notice that Mr. Shyne was very quick to go running. I really thought that it would be Ms. Bowman going after the cookies, but.

Councilman Shyne: I’m not a diabetic, but we might have a few on the Council, so I have to - - - (inaudible).

Councilman Walford: And I did understand that those were for all of the Council?

Ms. Taylor: Yes.

Councilman Walford: Wanted to get that on the record.

Ms. Taylor: Yes, they are for the entire Council. And I would like to say that this entire group, we had a bake night, last Monday night, and this entire group had a part in the baking of these homemade cookies. They are not from WalMart. So, they are homemade.

Councilman Walford: Thank you very much, and with that we’ll move to Convention Center, Convention Center Hotel report. Anything to add for us Mr. Dark?

Reports:

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

Mr. Dark: No sir Mr. Chairman.

Property Standards Report

Councilman Walford: And another shot at Mr. Bowie, from any of the Council Members. Anything for Property Standards.

Councilman Long: I’ve got one.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Bowie, you couldn’t escape, if you’ll come forward.

Councilwoman Bowman: Mr. Bowie, yesterday you were going to get some information to get back to me on today?

Mr. Bowie: That was on Buncombe, Mr. White wasn’t it? I thought we discussed that.

Councilwoman Bowman: Okay, we discussed that one, and then I thought you were going to check into the area of Poland and Missouri?

Mr. Bowie: Yeah, and the inspector hasn’t gotten back with me yet. He was missing today, so I’ll get it and I’ll give you a call tomorrow on that.

Councilman Long: Mr. Bowie, did you get this letter from Mr. Feather concerning 171 Swedes Avenue?

Mr. Bowie: And the City Attorney now is giving me an opinion on whether we should proceed with this.

Councilman Long: Very good. Well, keep me posted on that. Thank you.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Bowie, I want to thank you for the job that your crew did that we went out and looked at. Because you know when the job is not really done well, I raise a lot of sand, and when the job is done well, I want you to know that I appreciate it.

Councilman Bowie: You’re more than welcome.

Councilman Shyne: And evidently somebody went out and checked behind them because it was done well, because I got some calls from people that live in that area, saying - - - they were thanking me, and I told them I would pass that along to you. I’m not going to pass all of on to you, but I’ll pass some of it hear?

Councilman Walford: Anything else? Welcome Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Glover: It’s good to be here Mr. Chairman, and Council.

Councilman Walford: If I may back up, do you have any communications or distinguished guests?

Mayor Glover: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to join you all in doing something that I think you’ve already done, and that’s recognizing the fine members here of the Caddo Parish 4-H Clubs. I’m honored to have received today, my alumni badge. I have some already up stairs Council Member.

Councilman Glover: I was going to keep them for you.

Mayor Glover: One of the privileges of being Mayor. I got mine early. But I wanted to make a point to recognize them for being here. And to let them know how much I appreciate all the great work that they’re doing. And to say to all of those out there within the listening audience, 4-H is one of the best programs that we have in this country for helping to build leaders, to help make young people into better young people. And I’m so thankful and so grateful that my parents had the foresight to get me and my brothers and sisters involved, and it certainly has made a tremendous, tremendous difference in my life. And so I thank them for being here. In addition to that, I also want to join you Mr. Chairman and the other members of Council in expressing my apologies to those individuals who found themselves on the inappropriate end of the enforcement of our flag ordinance this past weekend. I know that I and other members who are in Washington, D.C., but I want to commend you Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Dark for stepping and making very clear that this is not how the ordinance was intended to be enforced. That we do not in any way that we want to indicate that we do not support the display of ‘Old Glory’ in its full glory, and that we will ensure that this coming Saturday for Gemini and Sunday for the Highland parade, and all the others that our law enforcement folks will be properly versed in exactly how to effectively enforce this ordinance. But we want no one to leave believing that the City of Shreveport is in anyway trying to restrict the display or the flying of our American Flag, whether it be on a pole, on a shirt, on a lawn chair or whatever else someone else may want to (inaudible) it upon. So thank you all for the leadership that you’ve shown, the clarity that you brought to the issue, and the support that you’ve shown to the men and women of the Police Department.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Mayor, I have the feeling that we may be the most patriotic city in the nation come Saturday. We may have the greatest display of flags we ever had. So, thank you.

Public Hearing: None.

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

Confirmations and/or Appointments:

Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board: (Postponed January 23, 2007)

Cpl Joseph Lewis Cpl Jason Brook

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Shyne to postpone until the litigation that is associated with that particular issue has been resolved. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda

1. Resolution No. 25 of 2007: A resolution requesting the Mayor of the City of Shreveport to solicit proposals for development of all or a portion of the Paul Lynch Park Property, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

2. Ordinance No. 30 of 2007: An ordinance creating Section 22-29, Issuance of Citations, that authorizes the Director of the Department of Operational Services, or his designee, and The Chief Building Official, to issue citations to violators of Section 22-26 (B)(5), and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 31 of 2007: An Ordinance to amend and reenact portions of Article VII of Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances relative to stopping, standing and parking and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Bowman to add Resolution No. 25 and Ordinance No(s). 30, and 31 of 2007 to the agenda . Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Public Comments (Agenda Items to be Adopted)

Mr. Marshall Jones: (2124 Fairfield) I represent Dr. Aneal Chabra a local renowned, cardiovascular and surgeon and consultant. He is the present President of the Shreveport Medical Society. Dr. Chabra owns an entity called Unique Hearts, L.L.C., that a month or five weeks appeared before the Metropolitan Planning Commission, not represented by me, and the result of that MPC hearing are before this distinguished board today. I ask, and respectfully ask that the City Council remand this particular case back to the MPC. My review of the minutes of the MPC hearing, and the matters that were legitimate concerns of some of the neighbors nearby and of East Ridge Country Club, could have and should have been addressed before this matter went before the MPC. I’m a pretty good lawyer, but what I think needs to be done are some things that we all learned in kindergarten, like some better communication, a little bit better give and take between the applicant and the neighbors there. And in my recent discussions with the MPC Staff, I feel confident that we can come up with a plan that is acceptable to everyone, including the members of the MPC. So, my request before you today, is to pass on what could be an unnecessary and possibly contentious hearing on an zoning appeal, my discussions with Mr. Jambor of the MPC is that they perhaps welcome us to come back and re-design, re-apply. The quid pro quo is that we would ask in return for the remand is that we be allowed to bring this matter back up in the event we are not successful in coming to a common decision, a common consensus that everybody wants out there in the neighborhood.

Councilman Shyne: Whose district is that, Mr. Wooley?

Mr. Jones: Mr. Wooley, I sent you a letter today, I don’t know if it got to you.

Councilman Wooley: No, it did not, but I have spoken with some other individuals on this subject. And that is the direction that I want to take is to remand it back to the MPC. I think it’s something that can be worked out. I got some more details just yesterday that I think are applicable to this.

Mr. Jones: The matters that are involving some beautiful trees that don’t need to be cut down. They need to make that covenant. The East Ridge Country Club was concerned about golf balls coming over on our clients property. The result of that is we need to give under some sort of free lease that property to East Ridge, and relocate our buildings so that the potential hazard doesn’t even become a possibility.

Councilman Wooley: Yeah, I think if the two parties work together - - -

Mr. Jones: We’re going to do that and do it immediately , and hopefully not appear before you again. Thank you.

Mr. Geoff Westmoreland: (333 Texas Street, Suite 2350) I would assume that the Council would like us to address our comments on this issue at this point, or are we going to do that at a later date? I mean at a later time in the meeting.

Councilman Walford: It would be now unless a particular Council Member wants to call you forward later. I believe now would be the appropriate time.

Mr. Westmoreland: Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Council, Mayor Glover, I think you know why we’re here. I represent Eastwood on the Bayou, and we are here in the Zoning Appeal matter for Case No. C-1-07, an appeal by Golf Links Ventures, L.L.C. I presented the Council with a packet of information as well as our arguments in this matter regarding the various issues. I will try to be brief, because I appreciate your indulgence in allowing us to get up here on multiple occasions. I will not rehash every issue that we brought up in the package. I will briefly hit the high points and then ask you if the Council has any questions. I would at this time like to enter into the record here, 126 petitions by clients, which are the homeowners of Eastwood on the Bayou. Each of these petitions states that these members as well as pretty much all of the members that I and the board have talked to area against the development and the zoning change by Golf Links Ventures. While there may be certain homeowners that may be in favor of this zoning application, we’ve - - - I’ve never been made aware of that. To our knowledge everyone that we have spoken with in Eastwood on the Bayou is against it. As I said yesterday at the planning meeting, or at the work meeting, I think if you looked at these issues that we’ve raised drainage, traffic, wetlands again, which is kind of a side issue for us, because we don’t have the standing to raise that. But all of those in combination create a situation where we believe that this plan is not right for what this area needs for right now from the drainage standpoint, especially from a traffic standpoint, and from other issues of just planning use site density. On the drainage, I think that it speaks for itself. The pictures we provided for you also show you that there is definite drainage concern in this area. The traffic is a major issue. Council, we had a - - - Lynn Ford will tell you, but we had an accident just yesterday due to backup traffic in front of Eastwood on the Bayou, right there at that gate. We’re about to increase that traffic flow, exponentially with the increase of WalMart, and that street just simply can’t hold a whole lot more traffic, especially turning in and out. And so, right now our argument would be that, that space, that place right there is not going to take another 80-82 homes. The wetlands again is an issue - - - I spoke with the developer again this week, and I appreciate him calling me. But and while he tells me that the proposal has been sent to the Corps, and nothing has come from the Corps. And we believe it’s prudent not to make a zoning change until the Corps makes a decision as to parts of this area which are I think clearly wetlands. We have a delineation report from 1995 in our files that shows that a good portion of that is wetland. I would just ask the Council to review the packet, if they have not. And I would like to allow you to have any questions from me. We also have the President of our board and the manager for the property as well, who intend to speak.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Long, I believe that’s in your district?

Councilman Long: That’s correct.

Councilman Shyne: Do you plan to make some comments?

Councilman Long: Yeah, I’ll make some comments later.

Ms. Lynn Ford: (3200 Eastwood) Again, thank you for letting me speak. I am the property manager for Eastwood on the Bayou. And I’m also speaking on behalf of a property owner I manage Berry Busada. He owns the building at 3010 Knight Street, and I am his property manager also. And as we stated yesterday, we’re not only speaking regarding drainage, the wetlands, or Eastwood, but one of my major concerns is the traffic. In the building I manage at 3010 Knight Street, A&L Energy is the one that houses the State Police. We have the riverboat gaming, the video poker, and the fraud division, as well as the Veterans Office as well as a new production company that’s filming a movie. In that same area within the property at Eastwood, and this new proposed subdivision are three apartment complexes. That’s a one block area with no sidewalk, no turn lane, nothing. And as the attorney said last night, we already had an accident just trying to turn in and out of that one block area, where we’re also going to add WalMart to the opposite end. So, I feel like there’s a serious issues regarding the traffic, and that’s one of our major issue. But again, not only the drainage, the traffic, the wetlands, the wildlife, I’m just asking that you deny that zoning change. Thank you.

Mr. Dale Alsandor: (3346 Eastwood Drive) And I would like to say that I did not sign, I’m not one of the approximately 50% of the homeowners at Eastwood that signed the petition opposing the development or the planned development. I’ve been a resident of Eastwood for 2 ½ years. The thing that caught me when the petition arrived at my home, was that it only gave one side, one viewpoint, and that was the viewpoint of the Board of Directors, or Property Management. I am not in opposition to the development. I believe that the wetlands issue is not our concern. We don’t own that land, and there is not a tree on it that we control. So, the present owners can chop every tree down as they see fit, it’s their land. If there is going to be a development there that’s planned and is authorized by the city, has met all of the zoning, all of the drainage issues, all of the engineering, the reason we have city ordinances, if all of those things are met, I support this development. As a homeowner, I would much rather see 84-100 high value homes next to our property that will increase our property value, not decrease it. If WalMart is being built now, there is nothing we can do to stop that. I think that I would not have supported. But since it met all of the requirements for traffic, and it’s going to be thousands of cars going to WalMart, how could 84 homeowners, approximately 1 ½ cars per homeowner, affect the traffic flow adversely to Eastwood on the Bayou? I do not agree with that. Drainage is of course a concern, but I would have to trust that our officials here and the Metropolitan Planning Commission would not allow development to be built if it’s going to back up drainage. So, I don’t think that’s an issue. So, if the argument is traffic, I don’t see how 84 homes is going to affect us. WalMart is going to affect us. And that is for another day. I support the venture.

Mr. Chet Strong: (3671 Park Trail) I am President of the Eastwood Homeowners Association, a community of 232 homes. When the property in question was first posted, for the proposed zoning change, Eastwood was concerned about how the changes would affect us in the surrounding area. We made attempts to see how issues such as drainage, flow control, sewerage and traffic would be addressed. The answer we received was we will comply with city codes. We were not satisfied with their answer and opposed the rezoning. The Planning Commission agreed with us, and unanimously rejected their request. In addition to the (inaudible) we presented, the wetlands and the Corps of Engineers also came up. A while ago Mr. Alexander made the comment, part of the board was opposed to it. The board is unanimously opposed to this deal, and as far as other residents of Eastwood, he was the first one that we have heard make any support for their proposal. In fact Eastwood has been unified very much by this. There have been several things that we have problems with certain individuals, and certain - - - they see things differently than we do. But on this particular situation we are unified. Everyone is supporting the denial of the request. Our system encourages economic growth, and we understand their goal to make a profit. However the profit will very likely in the end cost Eastwood and the City of Shreveport untold amounts of money, when their lack of planning creates the problems that have been outlined. We urge you to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, and deny their request.

Mr. Greg Casun: (559 Arbor Brook Lane, Coppell, TX) Good afternoon Council Members. I represent the developers working with land owner in the application process, and first of all, I just want to say we have not taken this lightly as far as going through the zoning process. We started our process approximately 18 months ago. In July of ’05 we met with MPC to do a feasibility, initial feasibility study meeting to understand could be developed on this site for capacity for drainage, capacity for sewer, utility, traffic, and all of the things related to the development. We’ve worked it as processed. We’ve hired several engineers, spent quite of bit of money (inaudible) except the Corps, (inaudible) site plan, engineering, and traffic studies. So, we are working through that. Just real quickly, not to rehash all of that, but go through the MPC’s decision, that was in January of ’03. There are really three reasons that appears that they denied the zoning application. The first one was neighborhood incompatibility due to site density. Our proposed development is about five dwelling units per acre. Our neighbors, Eastwood on the Bayou, the other apartments are in excess of 20 units per acre, from a density standpoint. So, I’m a little concerned when the denial was due to a density issue, when we are coming in at 25% of the density in the area. We had originally gone to the MPC through all of our discussions and talked about a higher density product, a town home product, a duplex type product, and based on their recommendations, we went to an R-1H zoning, which is 50 x 100 foot lot, to bring that zoning down and create kind of a buffer transition from the high density to where we’re trying to get to. The second concerns was the drainage concerns. We have spent a lot of time and a lot of money with engineers working on our drainage, to get the right storm water drainage. I really can’t speak to the office building and Eastwood on the Bayou on their drainage concerns, but we will take care of any drainage issues we have on our site to make sure we drain. It’s in our best interest the water not back up on our property. We would not have happy residents, homeowners living there. The third issue that was brought up is the environmental issue. Again, I think this is related to the wetlands, we have submitted to the Corps of Engineers six weeks ago, our delineation. We talked to them yesterday, they told us it’d probably be another week and a half. Our goal, and what we will do, we will meet whatever the Corps of Engineers comes back with. I don’t believe that should hold up a zoning approval for wetlands issues. We will abide with whatever the Corps of Engineers come back with. There is a couple of other issues that Eastwood on the Bayou in their petition, they’d brought up. One was traffic concerns. Again, we’ve been meeting with the MPC regarding traffic at this site. There has never been an instance where they came back and said there is a traffic issue. Capacity appears to be all in line with what we’re trying to do. We have talked to them about some preliminary site plans that we have, and they recommended that we go back to two entrances for our property versus one, we’d originally looked at. They’ve been to the site and looked at where ingress and egress is. We have 80-82 home sites. We’ve put two ingress-egresses in there, Eastwood on the Bayou is over 200 units, and they have one entrance-exit. So we try to look at that, make the appropriate adjustment for traffic there. But again I think the capacity is fair based on the MPC’s conversations. The last thing that they brought up in their petition is really in my mind, more of a platting issue, where they are wanting to know what the fencing is going to look like. What’s the garbage - - - you know, all the issues that come up at platting. And again, I believe that should be delayed until platting approval has taken place. And our goal, and what we will do is any of the City regulations with regard to the R-1H zoning, we will meet those items. So, again our goal is to have a quality development, or enhance the area. We’re going to a lower density site than what’s surrounding us at this point. So, any questions?

Councilman Walford: I do want to clear up one thing. You said that the decision from the MPC, I thought you said it was January of ’03?

Mr. Casun: January 3^rd of ’07, yes, and we did - - - just to clarify, our wetlands survey that we did was April 2006, not the ones (inaudible), but April 2006. In our development that we have planned, there’s only about 1 ½ acres that are impacted by wetlands issue. Everything else is above wetlands area. So, the 17 acres that we plan on building on, we’re only impacting 1 ½ acres of wetlands based on the original delineation.

Mr. James Van Hook, Jr.: (204 Milam Street) Thank you for the privilege of speaking to the Council. I will be very brief, because I know the rules require that. This is an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals granting a variance to an application for operation of a lounge in downtown Shreveport. My three clients are 1) a property owner in the Entertainment District, which has traditionally leased it’s property to nightclubs. The property is presently leased to the operator of GiGi’s Martini Room, which operates an upscale nightclub offering Jazz, Blues, entertainment. The other two property owners are outside of the Entertainment District. They own small buildings, one of which is used as a professional office. I have submitted written comments to the Council, and I would respectfully request that the Council consider our written comments before reaching its decision on this matter. I want simply to call attention to one aspect of the materials contained in my written comments. The zoning ordinances makes a very careful distinction between the operation of businesses in the Central Business District, and the operation of businesses in the Entertainment District. The Central Business District is described in the Zoning Ordinance as the symbolic managerial and cultural focal point of the City. And I believe we are all doing, we are trying to develop a vibrant city with a vibrant Central Business District, and we are also trying to develop a vibrant Entrainment District. It is absolutely critical that, that distinction be maintained. Mr. Verdell Evans who applied for the exception to the Zoning Ordinance said that it is his intention to operate a restaurant. His application said that his business is a bistro. He proposes that he be authorized to operate a lounge. The reason he states is that his bistro may exceed the 60-40% alcohol requirement for restaurants. He stated to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the reason that I am applying for a lounge is because I think we might have a problem with the 60-40 percentage, and I just want to make sure that I am in compliance with all the regulations. His application though, is for a lounge. He describes music and entertainment. He asks for four pool tables. He proposes to operate each day from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. the following morning. And his site plan includes a ticket booth, a pool room, stage, two bars, and a third martini bar. Ladies and gentlemen, I stopped drinking a number of years ago, but I know the difference between a restraint and a lounge, and what Mr. Evans is applying for is a lounge or a nightclub. If he is really interested in not getting in trouble by missing the 60-40 requirement on the sale of alcohol in relation to the sale of food, that could be addressed very simply. If the Council would impose the conditions which are on page 15 of the memorandum, which I submitted to the Council. 1) Let him sell 50% alcohol, and 50?% food. That gives him some leeway. 2) Require that food service be available at all times, as would be the case at any other restaurant. 3) Let him operate at hours that are more typical of restaurants. Closing for example at midnight or at 1:00 a.m. I suggested two other conditions that have to do with reapplying to the Zoning Board of Appeals after a year. My bottom line concern is that we know what must be done to have a vital Central Business District. We know what must be done, and we’ve been trying by bits and starts to have a vital entertainment district. It’s important that the Entrainment District be encouraged. The group that we rent to has worked very hard to establish an upscale nightclub, and I have worked very hard to help them. They are entitled to the benefit of having nightclubs operated in the Entertainment District. And property owners outside the Central Business District are entitled to have the benefit of being part of the City that recognizes Downtown as a place to live and work and play, but we know the difference between working on the one hand and playing on the other hand. And I would respectfully suggest that the Council condition the approval of Mr. Evan’s application with the condition that I’ve suggested on page 15 of my memo, which would let him operate a restaurant, but would prohibit his operating a nightclub. We need a good restaurant in the Central Business District, and I hope Mr. Evans is able to operate it. But if he wants to operate a nightclub, he needs to come to the Entertainment District. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Van Hook for your questions. Looking at the subject property, as I appreciate it, directly across the street from Mr. Evans proposes to operate, there are in fact two nightclubs aren’t there?

Mr. Van Hook: There are two nightclubs across the street.

Councilman Lester: Actually two that are in operation, and one that was a nightclub that - - -

Mr. Van Hook: The one that you remember that’s in operation has been for a long time is on the corner, called MoJo’s. The one right next door was known as Mabel’s for a long time, and when I checked it the other day, the sign out from says the Red Velvet and in smaller letters down at the bottom, it says Mabel’s L.L.C. So, I’m assuming it’s actually the same licensee. They’ve both been there for a long time, and if I could have opposed them I would have.

Councilman Lester: Okay, and then right next door to that, is a spot, I think owned by maybe Dr. Cush that owns that place that used to be - - -

Mr. Van Hook: It was a restaurant there.

Councilman Lester: It was a restaurant and a nightclub. I think it used to be - - -

Mayor Glover: Dowdell’s.

Councilman Lester: There you go.

Councilman Shyne: He knows because he’s been there.

Councilman Lester: Well, I’ve been there too, but that’s another story.

Mr. Van Hook: Mr. Lester, when I checked the other day, there are the two buildings that we just discussed, next to that are two buildings for sale, and then the third is occupied as a lawyer’s office, and then you get to the old United Mercantile Bank Building next door to that.

Councilman Lester: I guess, just to clarify I understand that the whole idea about the Entertainment District versus the Central Business District, I guess my question would be I could maybe understand your argument a little bit better if this development were to be the first one across the door. And this was opening the door to something that had never been done before in terms of either a nightclub or a lounge or a hybrid of the other. And not getting into that, but just the idea of saying well, we don’t want nightclubs or anything like that in the Entertainment District, or the Central Business District when you have two places that are currently operating as nightclubs in that same area, and one that’s right next door to it, that had been operating as a nightclub. I’m not saying that’s a little disingenuous, I’m just trying to follow your argument that says we don’t need that when we are - - - and they have been operating in the Central Business District for quite some time.

Mr. Van Hook: I guess three things in response Mr. Lester. First, if I could have opposed those two operations, I would have done so. Second, although zoning variances have been given in the past, that isn’t a reason to abandon the philosophy of the zoning ordinance, which is to say that the Central Business District is the cultural, managerial, social focal point of the City of Shreveport, and we are trying to build a stronger City of Shreveport. Third, I would simply invite your attention to Mr. Evans’ application in which he states ‘I want to operate a restaurant. I’m a little concerned that I may exceed the 60-40’. But then look at the other parts of the application where he indicates very clearly that his intention is to operate a nightclub. And just because there’ve been exceptions in the past, I would respectfully suggest, those were not the best decisions, and the same mistake should not be repeated this time.

Councilman Lester: And I understand that, I just was trying to get some clarity with the argument. Because as I look at it, to me and without getting into a back and forth, it just seems when you talk about the Entertainment District as opposed to the Central Business District, I mean, it’s almost the same thing as in my district when I have people that talk about the difference between Lakeside and Allendale. Depending on how old you are, and depending on what corner you’re standing on, some people would say you’re standing in Allendale, and it’s Lakeside. Some people would say it’s Lakeside, and it’s Allendale. And if you go to the office of mortgage and records, it says Hotchkiss. So, I mean a lot of it there - - -. I guess my concern is seeing what is proposed there, to me doesn’t look a lot different from - - - for instance - - - lets say the Blind Tiger, which is diagonally across the street. And as I appreciate it has a restaurant, and it has pool tables, and it has a bar, and Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to say that I’ve been there in the early morning, but you know I have been there in the early morning (inaudible).

Councilman Shyne: And that was before you got married.

Councilman Lester: Way before. Thank you, thank you for that Councilman.

Mr. Van Hook: The zoning ordinance puts boundaries around the Entertainment District. One of them is Spring Street, the other is Cross Bayou and then the River, and then I-20. And so the Blind Tiger is within the boundary of the Entertainment District.

Councilman Lester: Okay, thank you.

Councilman Shyne: I’m a little puzzled. I have not heard from Mr. Evans, and I get a little puzzled when I hear other people expressing their ideas and the viewpoints of somebody else. I kinda think it’s unfair to deny his application. I think it’s kinda unfair for a couple of reasons. It seems like to me, in that particular area the Entertainment and the Central Business Districts kinda are interwoven with one another. And you basically have the same kind of businesses that he’s talking about opening that’s there already. I kinda think it’s unconstitutional and kinda little bit un-American to keep him from operating a legitimate business that’s going to actually enhance our community, and help make this the next great city of the south. I look at it as being a worthwhile endeavor. I will say that I’m a born again Christian, and some of those establishments like that, Mr. Mayor, I don’t frequent anymore. Calvin what are you laughing about?

Councilman Lester: This cookie is really good.

Councilman Shyne: Oh, okay. But it do think that we do not need to be unfair to him, and to deny him of this application. And because I think what he’s - - - the kind of business that he’s going into is in the (inaudible) of what we have there already. The only thing that I would ask him to do is to make sure that he would monitor his business, and I know if he plans to stay in business, he will, because there’s a certain element out there that will put him out of business very quickly, if he does not monitor his business and make sure that the behavior and the actions of the customers that come there are very lawful. But I think he has a great idea, and I think it would be truly an enhancement to the Entertainment District and to the Business District. So, basically I look favorably on it, but now I’ll say it again Councilman Lester, I’m a born again Christian, and some things, I - - - you know some establishments I do not attend, but I think it’s a worthwhile business venture for Mr. Evans.

Mr. Van Hook: Mr. Shyne, I was not simply putting words into Mr. Evans’ mouth, I was quoting from the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing. And I would love to see Mr. Evans restaurant which is what he says is what he wants to do. My only opposition is to his operating a nightclub. And I would respectfully suggest that - - - I don’t want the Council to deny his application, I simply would request that it be conditioned so that he operate a restaurant, rather than a nightclub, which is what he says he wants to do.

Councilman Walford: Let me clear up one thing. You’ve made reference several times to variance. As I read the case, no variance is requested. He merely request for a special exception use for alcohol on premise consumption of high alcohol content as a lounge.

Mr. Van Hook: That is exactly right.

Councilman Walford: He would actually have alcohol by right as a restaurant. That’s the only difference.

Mr. Van Hook: He would have alcohol by right as a restaurant, but would be subject to the 60-40 rule.

Councilman Walford: I understand that, but my point is there is no variance requested, I wanted to clear that up.

Mr. Van Hook: No, no, I mis-spoke myself, he asked for an exception.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman, before he leaves, that’s the reason why I was saying that a lot of times, we can misquote or maybe we can maybe read something into something that wasn’t there, and that’s why I always like to hear it - - - as my daddy used to say, directly from the horses mouth, and if we got any country folks out there, you all understand what I’m saying. Because sometimes we can make a mistake, we can interpret what we read a little bit different, than maybe what the person meant. But I know you meant well, but I just wanted to bring that out.

Mr. Van Hook: And I hope the horse is here to clear up anything that I may have messed up. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

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. 13 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS RECEIVED ON IFB #07-002, CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE STATION 22, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, five (5) bids were received as a result of solicitations for Construction of Fire Station 22, IFB #07-002; and;

WHEREAS, the City has rejected these bids in accordance with La R.S. 38:2214 B, because all bids received for the project 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 #07-002 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 Shyne, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 14 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS RECEIVED FOR IFB #07-009, HOT MIX ASPHALT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, two (2) bids were received as a result of solicitations for Hot Mix Asphalt, IFB #07-009; and

WHEREAS, the City has rejected these bids in accordance with La R.S. 39:1594 C (d)(ii),as the City has determined it will be in the best interest to renew the existing contract on this project.

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 #07-009 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 Long, seconded by Councilman Wooley to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION

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

The Clerk read the following:

1. Resolution No. 184 of 2006: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into, or request the Authority to enter into, one or more Swap Agreements, all in connection with certain outstanding bonds of the City or the Authority and providing for other matters in connection therewith. (Postponed January 23, 2007.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Long to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

2. Resolution No. 12 of 2007: A resolution stating the City of Shreveport’s endorsement of 229 Milam, LLC to participate in the benefits of the Louisiana restoration Tax Abatement Program, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford) (Public Hearing February 27, 2007 (Not to be adopted prior to February 27, 2007)

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Walford to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 15 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SUSPEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN CHAPTERS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT CODE OF ORDINANCES TO GRANT TEMPORARY APPROVAL FOR USES AND OPERATIONS RELATED TO FILMING OR PRODUCTION OF MOVIES WITHIN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport is experiencing tremendous growth in its movie industry; and

WHEREAS, in recent months, several movies have been filmed in whole or in part in the City and more are anticipated in 2007; and

WHEREAS, from time to time, a production company may request approval to engage in temporary activities and operations on City-property or elsewhere that are prohibited by provisions of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, often, production schedules driven by budget constraints do not afford sufficient time to obtain City Council approval to suspend the particular ordinance provision; and

WHEREAS, granting limited authority to the Mayor of the City of Shreveport to temporarily suspend the effect of certain provisions of certain chapters of the Code of Ordinances would expedite approval of such requests by the production companies.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is authorized to temporarily suspend the effect of certain provisions of certain chapters of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances for a period not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days per request, for uses and operations related to the filming or production of movies within the City of Shreveport.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall expire at 12:00 midnight, on December 31, 2008.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or application, and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance 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 Webb, seconded by Councilman Wooley to adopt.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, I would like to send you my Bio. I would hope that you could kinda push it a little bit.

Mayor Glover: As your agent Mr. Shyne, I want you to know that there is an open casting call today. We have a spot reserved for you right at the conclusion of this Council meeting.

Councilman Shyne: Thank you sir.

Mayor Glover: So Cowboy hat, boots and jeans are waiting, and we have a horse for you to mount and rid.

Councilman Walford: Have you checked his Screen Actors Guild card?

Mayor Glover: We get him his first speaking part, then we can apply for that.

Councilman Long: A re-make of Blazing Saddles.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 16 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport intends to acquire certain equipment and other property as generally described below (hereinafter, the “Property”);

Garbage packers, trucks, tractors, passenger vehicles, motorcycles, buses, fire trucks and equipment, traffic engineering vehicles, public works vehicles and equipment

WHEREAS, the City may pay certain capital expenditures in connection with the Property prior to its receipt of proceeds of a lease-purchase agreement (“Lease Purchase Proceeds”);

WHEREAS, the City reasonably anticipates that it will make expenditures with respect to the Property in the principal amount not exceeding $4.3 million (“Principal Amount”) for which the City may or expects to enter into one or more Lease-Purchase Agreements;

WHEREAS, Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service Regulations do not allow the proceeds of a tax-exempt borrowing to be spent on working capital;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport (“Governing Body”) in due, legal and regular session convened that:

Section 1. The Governing Body finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. This Resolution is adopted by the Governing Body of the City for the purpose of establishing compliance with the requirements of Section 1.150-2 of Treasury Regulations. This Resolution does not bind the City to make any expenditure, incur any indebtedness, or proceed with the purchase of the Property.

Section 3. The Governing Body of the City expects the City will pay certain capital expenditures in connection with the Property prior to the receipt of Lease Purchase Proceeds for the Property.

Section 4. The Governing Body of City hereby declares the City’s official intent to use Lease Purchase Proceeds to reimburse itself for Property expenditures.

Section 5. This resolution and declaration of official intent shall take effect in accordance with Section 4.23 of the City Charter.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Shyne to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 17 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MAYOR TO PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A REPORT LISTING CURRENT WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE CITY IS A PARTY AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

By: Councilman Wooley

WHEREAS, in order to review and consider existing policies and obligations of the city and determine future policies and courses of action, it is important for the City Council to have complete and up to date information regarding contracts to which the city is a party; and

WHEREAS, a centralized list of all such contracts for amounts in excess of $10,000 would assist City Council members by providing convenient and comprehensive access to such contract information.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Mayor is hereby requested to provide the City Council with a report listing all current written contracts to which the city is a party and for which the amount is in excess of $10,000, to include the names of the parties, the commencement and termination dates, a brief description of the purpose of the contract, the amount of the contract, and the department which administers the contract. The City Council requests that the report be submitted to the Council by March 13, 2007. If necessary, the Mayor may request additional time by giving a written report to the Council describing the factors involved, the reasons the additional time is needed, and the date the contract listing will be provided.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Wooley, seconded by Councilman Bowman to adopt.

Councilman Wooley: I just wanted to reiterate, basically this is a simple management tool that I think is important that we run the City like a business. That we should be aware as a Council and not that we’re not aware, not that we don’t have the opportunity to receive the information upon request, but to have a quick reference tool to the contracts that the City is involved in. And obviously we wanted to set some type of standard, and it was recommended yesterday by Councilman Shyne and I think the rest of the Council liked the idea of a $10,000 or more. That way, we can kinda look at the contracts and see who we’re in contract with, the service we’re rendering, or they’re rendering to us. The terms of those contracts, that way we have a better understanding of what’s going on with our business. Thank you.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 18 of 2007

A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 16 OF THE CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE RELATIVE TO THE USE AND OPERATION OF THE CHAMBER AND ADJOINING CONFERENCE ROOMS IN GOVERNMENTAL PLAZA AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that Section 16 of the City Council Rules of Procedure is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 16. The use and operation of the chamber and adjoining conference rooms in Governmental Plaza.

The Shreveport City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 119 of 2000 and 121 of 2001 and the Caddo Parish Commission adopted identical resolutions to regulate the use of the Government Plaza Chamber and the adjoining conference rooms. The resolutions restricted the use of these facilities to the Shreveport City Council, the Caddo Parish Commission, the Metropolitan Planning Commission, the Shreveport Metropolitan Zoning Board of Appeals, the Louisiana House of Representatives and the Louisiana State Senate.

The Resolutions also established a Government Plaza Chamber Standing Committee, consisting of three council members and three commission members to oversee the operation of the Chamber and make recommendations to the governing bodies relative to the use and operation of the chamber and adjoining conference rooms. The three members of the Council who shall serve as members of the Government Plaza Chamber Standing Committee shall be the current Council Chairman, the Vice Chairman and the immediate past Chairman of the Council.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Long to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 19 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION TO ALLOW THE LOUISIANA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL TO USE THE GOVERNMENTAL CHAMBER ON MARCH 16, 2007 AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By: Councilman Monty Walford

WHEREAS, the Shreveport City Council and the Caddo Parish Commission jointly adopted by resolution the rule that the Government Plaza Chamber's use shall be limited to meetings by the Shreveport City Council, the Caddo Parish Commission, the Metropolitan Planning Commission, the Shreveport Metropolitan Zoning Board of Appeals, Louisiana House of Representatives and the Louisiana State Senate; and

WHEREAS, the legislation also established a Government Plaza Chamber Standing Committee to oversee the operation of the Chamber and adjoining conference rooms and to make recommendations to the Shreveport City Council and the Caddo Parish Commission relative to the use and operation of the chamber and conference rooms; and

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Economic Development Council requested to use the Governmental Chamber on March 16, 2007; and

WHEREAS, the Caddo Parish Commission has no objection to this use.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, to allow the Louisiana Economic Development Council to use the Governmental Chamber on March 16, 2007, for a one time use.

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 resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Bowman, seconded by Councilman Long to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 20 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION TO AMEND AND REENACT THE SHREVEPORT CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

By: Councilwoman Joyce Bowman

WHEREAS, statistical information prepared and maintained by the Shreveport Police Department shows that criminal activity in Shreveport is on a downward trend; and

WHEREAS, this statistical information also shows that criminal activity in Shreveport is too high; and

WHEREAS, crime adversely affects the quality of life for citizens of Shreveport; and

WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the City of Shreveport to make the further reduction of crime a priority, and to enact policies and allocate resources to this end; and

WHEREAS, the events of fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), and emergency management are very much in use by the Shreveport Fire Department in the protection of life, property, and the environment of the City of Shreveport; and

WHEREAS, a Shreveport City Council Public Safety Committee (the Committee) is needed to work with the City Council, the Mayor, the police and fire departments and other public safety agencies of the city, parish, state and nation to insure that policies are enacted, and public funds are used in the most effective manner possible to reduce crime and make Shreveport citizens safe and provide resources for fighting fires, enhancing EMS, and readying the emergency management capabilities of the City of Shreveport; and

WHEREAS, the Committee is needed to review and make recommendations concerning public safety policies and procedures, and budgets for the affected departments; and

WHEREAS, the Committee is needed to promote cooperation and coordination between all public safety agencies, especially those in Caddo and Bossier Parishes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the Shreveport City Council Public Safety Committee (the Committee) is established for the purposes stated herein, and it is authorized to carry out the tasks outlined herein.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Committee shall consist of three City Council members appointed by the Chairman of the Council, the Mayor or his appointee, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief.

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, including Resolution No. 201 of 2006.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Bowman, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 21 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SYSTEM SURVEY AND COMPLIANCE QUESTIONNAIRE REQUIRED BY THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITORS OFFICE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND OTHERWISE TO PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport received a questionnaire from the State Legislative Auditor which is to be completed as a required part of the audit for which we have engaged certified public accountants, KPMG LLP; and

WHEREAS, upon completion of the questionnaire it must be presented to and adopted by the governing body of the City of Shreveport by means of a formal resolution at an open meeting; and

WHEREAS, the completed questionnaire must then be given to the auditor engaged by the municipality who will, during the course of his regular audit, test the accuracy of the answers to the questionnaire and submit to the municipality and the Legislative Auditor a report containing his opinion as to the validity of the answers.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the attached Systems Survey and Compliance Questionnaire for the City of Shreveport be and the same is hereby adopted.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Wooley to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 25 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ALL OR A PORTION OF THE PAUL LYNCH PARK PROPERTY AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: Councilman Lester

WHEREAS, over the years, the City of Shreveport has commissioned a number of studies intended to explore possibilities for development and revitalization of an area generally located North of Cross Bayou, including but not limited to the Agurs, Martin Luther King, North Highlands, Cherokee Park and North Hearne areas of the City (“redevelopment areas”); and

WHEREAS, the study areas for the various plans contain large tracts of property which are suitable for development; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport is the owner of a large tract of undeveloped property commonly referred to as the “Paul Lynch Park” property (the “Property”). The Property is generally located west of North Market Street, south of Martin Luther King Drive, and east of the proposed Interstate 49 alignment;

WHEREAS, the Property was acquired by the City between 1978 and 1983 for the intended purpose of development of a public park and other recreational uses; and

WHEREAS, to date, a park has not been developed on the Property; and

WHEREAS, creation of economic and commercial development opportunities are crucial to the long term viability and improvement of and within the redevelopment areas; and

WHEREAS, creation and development of these opportunities within the redevelopment area will foster and encourage job creation and retention and provide other opportunities beneficial to residents in the redevelopment areas and citywide; and

WHERAS, the location of the Property makes it ideally suited for such purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport desire to jumpstart development within the redevelopment areas by soliciting proposals for development of all or a portion of the Property for economic development, job creation and/or retention or other lawful purposes.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport is requested to solicit proposals for development of all or a portion of the Paul Lynch Park property for economic development, job creation and/or retention or other lawful purposes.

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

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

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

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman, I think this is excellent.

Councilman Walford: So, I will recognize Mr. Lester.

Councilman Shyne: That’s why I cut mine short. I know how lawyers are.

Councilman Lester: I know, I know, and I’m not even getting paid for this one. Mr. Chairman and Members, we’ve got Paul Lynch Park. For most people that live in north Shreveport, and in particular in the MLK area, many years ago, the City purchased this green land, Paul Lynch Park, and we’ve got an outstanding opportunity through the efforts of Mayor Glover, then State Representative for House District 4. If you see the red line, you’ve got I-49 that’s going to come off of 220 and intersect with the Martin Luther King Drive area, which is going to be a tremendous boost to that area in all of north Shreveport. As many of you know, Kroger’s has announced that they were closing their location in north Shreveport as of February 17^th. We’re having a meeting with the Kroger’s folks on the 22^nd or the 23^rd of this month in the Mayor’s office to talk to them about potentially staying in north Shreveport. And in my dialogue with them, they said if we could find an area, at least five acres that had particularly good parking or something like that, they would consider staying in the area. That got me to thinking. We’ve got Paul Lynch Park which is over 100 acres that has never been developed and is a sore spot as the Mayor indicated for many people in the Cooper Road area in terms of having a park. What we’re asking the Council to do is allow the Mayor to put this land out for an RFP to talk to a developer to explore the possibility in this quadrant right here, is about 24 acres, to actually take that land that will be fronted by I-49, and to develop some economic development in terms of a shopping mall, something like Bayou Walk, or Super WalMart or something of that nature, that will allow us to keep some of those tax dollars from north Shreveport from going, lets just say East, hitting 220 and going East. And it would also give us the opportunity to work with that developer to come up with some additional resources to actually develop Paul Lynch Park as an alternative for recreation for the people in the area. And so this Mayor has said he wants to look outside of the box. It was an idea that I approached the Administration with, and they seemed receptive to putting it out on the streets to see whether or not there is a developer that would be willing to bite on this. If that is done, certainly any action is going to have to be ratified by this Council. And it’s not going to cost us a cent. It’s just going to give us an opportunity to take a municipal asset and do something positive with it in terms of economic development, and in terms of potentially developing (inaudible), and I’d appreciate your support on that. And that’s the map, and this is the aerial view of what we have out there. I don’t know if you guys can see it, but this is 220, and all of this area in red on both sides of 220 - - - if you’ve seen N. Market, you see that big lake that’s there, that’s across - - - all of that is City property that has been undeveloped for years and years, and years since the ‘80s. And we’re talking about developing this first 24 acre plot, and then maybe again still giving us the options to do some recreational activities. And certainly it would help us because we’ve got a developer that comes in here and puts some economic development there, then one of the things that we could talk to them about would be helping to defray the cost of developing the park which I think would be a win/win for everybody. Thank you.

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to before you all take the vote express my appreciation for the - - - as I have termed it to him in some of our e-mail communications regarding this, Councilman Lester’s outside of the box thinking. Certainly to realize that we’re, or hopefully before too many years into the future, look to begin the construction of I-49 North. We know that there is going to be a tremendous amount of opportunity, and this particular part of the land may have been saved just for this particular set of circumstances, because certainly with the coming of that leg of the interstate, and all of the attended traffic that will come with it, we have the potential to do a great deal for the north Shreveport area. And to approach it from this manner, and to be as proactive and forward thinking as this proposal is, his idea is, is something that I think Councilman Lester should be commend for. I commend you all for supporting the concept and look forward to working with you all to see if we have any potential here. So, thank you much, and commend you again.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, do I hear you saying that you believe in Devine Intervention?

Mayor Glover: Very well. Very well could be. Without question. I know it’s been more than a few occasions in my life when I’ve been the beneficiary of such. So.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS (Not to be adopted prior to February 27, 2007)

1. Resolution No. 22 of 2007: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to donate Police Canine Smokey #2 to Jerry Curtis, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 23 of 2007: A resolution repealing Resolution 125 of 2003, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Resolution No. 24 of 2007: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute intergovernmental agreements and/or cooperative endeavor agreements between the City of Shreveport and the Village of Ida, and between the City of Shreveport, and the Town of Vivian, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Shyne to introduce Resolution No(s). 22, 23, and 24 2007 to lay over until February 27, 2007 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (Not to be adopted prior to February 27, 2007)

1. Ordinance No. 20 of 2007: An ordinance creating and establishing the intersection of Caldwell Street and Freddie Street as a stop intersection, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

2. Ordinance No. 21 of 2007: Ann ordinance creating and establishing a No Parking Anytime Zone on either side of South Lakeshore Drive beginning at its intersection with Lakecrest Drive, and extending north for a distance of one thousand and one hundred (1100) feet, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

3. Ordinance No. 22 of 2007: An ordinance creating and establishing a No Through Truck Route on Forbing Road between Dalton Street and Flournoy Lucas Road, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Wooley)

4. Ordinance No. 23 of 2007: An ordinance amending and reenacting Section 3.01(15)(a) of Ordinance No. 96 of 1980 relative to exemptions and exclusions from sales and use taxes, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 24 of 2007: An ordinance amending Section 22-1 of the Code of Ordinances, Schedule of Permit Fees, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

6. Ordinance No. 25 of 2007: An ordinance amending Section 22-2 of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Shreveport, Schedule of Registration Fees, and to otherwise providing with respect thereto.

7. Ordinance No. 26 of 2007: An ordinance repealing Sections 26-27(4) and 26-28 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances, and to enact Section 2-191 of Chapter 2, Article IV, Division 6 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances to reassign duties and functions relative to Automated Data Processing Equipment and Information Technology to the Office of the Mayor; and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

8. Ordinance No. 27 of 2007: An ordinance amending and reenacting Section 26-52 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport relative to custody and signing of titles to City-Owned vehicles, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

9. Ordinance No. 28 of 2007: An ordinance amending and reenacting Article V of Chapter 50 of the Code of Ordinances relative to smoking, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

10. Ordinance No. 29 of 2007: An ordinance amending and reenacting Section 90-305 (B) through (E) of the Code of Ordinances relative to parking of trucks, trailers, etc., in residential, semi-residential, semi-commercial and commercial zones, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Webb)

11. Ordinance No. 30 of 2007: An ordinance creating Section 22-29, Issuance of Citations, that authorizes the Director of the Department of Operational Services, or his designee, and The Chief Building Official, to issue citations to violators of Section 22-26 (B)(5), and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

12. Ordinance No. 31 of 2007: An Ordinance to amend and reenact portions of Article VII of Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances relative to stopping, standing and parking and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Wooley to introduce Ordinance No(s). 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 28, 29, 30 and 31 of 2007 to lay over until February 27, 2007 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

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

1. Ordinance No. 9 of 2007: An ordinance creating Stop intersections within the City limits of the City of Shreveport, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Webb)

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Webb, seconded by Councilman Shyne to adopt.

Councilman Webb: I know the - - - somebody from the public works I guess, they’re not in favor of this stop sign, Mr. Dark said in our meeting yesterday, but I feel like it’s a worthy spot to put a stoop sign. This particular neighborhood, built back in the late 70s. At one time, there were stop signs at every intersection going all the way through that neighborhood, almost every intersection. And the last 15 years, there’s been four or five different neighborhoods that were built off of Williamson Way, and this particular street Stone Haven is used as a cut through to go from Baird Road to Williamson Way, and as you come of Baird Road, for those that don’t know the area, there’s an “S” in the road, and you go two blocks before you have your first stop sign. And I know that there’s been one particular mailbox that’s been taken out three times because of people going too fast, and they don’t make the “S”. And I just think this is a great place to put a stop sign to prevent an accident or a child from getting run over, or somebody getting injured. And that’s one of the things I know when I was campaigning that I think most of the Council probably agree is they knocked on doors, people would say what can you do about the speeders coming up and down the street? This is one thing I can do is create a stop sign, if that’ll hope slow traffic down entering into the neighborhood, I think it’s a worthy cause.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

2. Ordinance No. 18 of 2007: An ordinance authorizing the purchasing agent to dispose of surplus real property, and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (D/Wooley) (Public Hearing February 27, 2007) (Not to be adopted prior to February 27, 2007)

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Wooley, seconded by Councilman Bowman to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

3. Ordinance No. 19 of 2007: An ordinance amending the 2007 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

4. Ordinance No. 215 of 2007: ZONING – C94-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport, zoning ordinance by rezoning property located on the west side of Hutchinson, 190 feet north of Greenwood Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana from R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District,, to B-1, Buffer Business District and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester) (Postponed January 23, 2007)

Having passed first reading on December 26, 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 Lester, seconded by Councilman Bowman to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

5. Ordinance No. 10 of 2007: ZONING – C-7-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinance, the zoning ordinance, by amending Sections 82-26, 82-41, and 84-74 relative to the subdivision of property, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

6. Ordinance No. 11 of 2007: ZONING – C-95-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinance, by rezoning a tract of land located 165 feet north of Green Road and 125 feet east of Hutchinson, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1D, to B-1, Buffer Business District, with MPC Approval, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Wooley. The Clerk read the following:

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 11 of 2007:

Amend Ordinance No. 11 of 2007 as follows:

Delete Stipulations one, two, and three, and replace with the following stipulation:

“1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with a revised

site plan showing fencing to ordinance standards. This plan shall be

submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. Any significant changes or additions shall require further review and approval by the Planning Commission. No permits shall be issued until the revised site plan and/or replatting of lots has been approved by the MPC Director or the Planning Commission.”

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Bowman to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 11 of 2007. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Bowman to adopt Ordinance No. 11 of 2007 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

7. Ordinance No. 12 of 2007: ZONING – C-97-06: Ann ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance by rezoning property located on the northwest corner of Southern Avenue and Pierremont Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana from B-1, Buffer Business District to B-2, Neighborhood Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/Long)

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Shyne to adopt.

Councilman Long: Well, what’s happening over there, we’ve got a piece of property that the owners have had a hard time trying to develop, and in many cases, we hat to put the cart before the horse, but in this case, if they get that zoning, they have some people who are willing to step in and do something with the property that will improve the neighborhood.

Councilman Walford: That’s on the northwest corner?

Councilman Long: Yeah.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

8. Ordinance No. 13 of 2007: ZONING APPEAL – C-101-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, the City of Shreveport by rezoning property located on the south side of Bert Kouns Industrial Loop 1500 feet east of Ellerbe Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-A, Residence Agriculture, to B-2 Neighborhood Business District, with PBG (Planned Building Group) approval, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Wooley)

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Wooley, seconded by Councilman Bowman to remand this case to the MPC. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

9. Ordinance No. 14 of 2007: ZONING APPEAL – C-1-07: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance by rezoning property located on the south side of Knight Street, 400 feet east of Eastwood Drive, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-A, Residence Agriculture to R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/Long)

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Bowman to remand this case to the MPC.

Councilman Long: We’ve heard quite a bit on this case, and I certainly appreciate all the citizens coming forward with their concerns. I do agree with many of their concerns relative to this development, but I also feel like that the developers do deserve the opportunity to have due process, and to continue to work with the MPC, to try to resolve some of these issues. So that’s why I would appreciate your support for that to occur. And at that point, if it has to come back to us, then we’ll see. But I think right now at this point, I’d like to remand back to the MPC to again revisit these issues, and let them work through the process.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

10. Ordinance No. 15 of 2007: ZONING – C-2-07: 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 Bert Kouns and Kingston Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District, and B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended Use District, to B-1-E Buffer Business/Extended Use District, Limited to “General Retail and Office Use as presented at the January 3, 2007 Public Hearing” only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Webb)

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Webb, seconded by Councilman Shyne to adopt.

Councilman Webb: Is there anyone here from the MPC? I wanted to ask a question about - - - is that the one behind on the - - - trying to think of what the name of that - - - there’s a retail office there now that closed down.

Mr. Jambor: Yes sir, (inaudible) and this is just extending that on both sides.

Councilman Webb: Just extending it, not going to go behind it towards the residence?

Mr. Jambor: No sir. And once again, the as presented at the hearing - - - a great deal of sensitivity to those neighborhoods, and limitations on what they’ll do as it abuts the residential property.

Councilman Webb: What are they going to do about extra parking?

Mr. Jambor: It goes in front as it explains. Once again, nothing but a great deal of sensitivity about anything that goes on behind because of the residential. And the neighborhood was basically in support of that, so long as they limited those uses. Nothing too intense, and nothing too extravagant going on in the end. That keeps anything from a very heavy service vehicles or anything ever being on the site.

Councilman Webb: Okay, appreciate it.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

11. Ordinance No. 16 of 2007: ZONING – C-3-07: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the west side of Mansfield Road, 1000 feet south of West 70^th Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from I-1, Light Industry District, to B-3 Community Business District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Webb)

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Webb, seconded by Councilman Long to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

12. Ordinance No. 17 of 2007: ZONING – C-4-07: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance by rezoning property located on the north side of West 70^th Street, 920 feet east of Mansfield Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-3, Community Business District, to R-3, Urban Multiple-Family Residence District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (F/Shyne)

Having passed first reading on January 23, 2007 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Bowman to adopt.

Councilman Shyne: I’m just trying to relieve Councilman Lester some of those up on his end.

Mayor Glover: Ms. McCulloch thanks you.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

The adopted ordinances and amendments follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 9 OF 2007

AN ORDINANCE CREATING STOP INTERSECTIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY:

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED By the City Council of the City of

Shreveport in regular and legal session convened that the following are hereby made

and created stop intersections:

1. Beddington Court and Somersworth Drive Stop at Somersworth Drive

2. Cherryfield Court and Stonehaven Drive Stop at Stonehaven Drive

3. Cherryfield Drive and Stonehaven Drive Stop at Stonehaven Drive

4. Cristin Coates Court and Somersworth Drive Stop at Somersworth Drive

5. Kedgwick Court and Somersworth Drive Stop at Somersworth Drive

6. Kristiansand Court and Stonehaven Drive Stop at Stonehaven Drive

7. North Cotswald Drive and South Cotswald Drive Stop at South Cotswald Drive

8. Somersworth Drive and Willowick Court Stop at Somersworth Drive

9. South Cotswald Drive and Stonehaven Drive Stop at Stonehaven Drive

10. Stonehaven Drive and Sundsvall Court Stop at Stonehaven Drive

11. Windbrooke Court and Windbrooke Drive Stop at Windbrooke Drive

SECTION II: BE IT ORDAINED By the City Council of the City of Shreveport

in regular and legal session convened that the following intersection is hereby made and

created a 4-way stop intersection requiring that all traffic and vehicles approaching this

intersection shall come to a full stop before entering the intersection:

1. Danfield Court / Helmsdale Court and Stonehaven Drive

* * * * * * * *

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

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof

in conflict herewith , including Ordinance No. 320 of 1982, are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 10 OF 2007

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 82 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY:

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that section 26 of Chapter 82 of the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to now read as follows:

Sec. 82-26. Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

***

Subdivision means the division of a lot, a tract, or a parcel of land or a portion thereof, into lots, sites, or other divisions, any one or more of which is to be platted as a lot of record for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale or building development, and includes resubdivision, or the consolidation of multiple lots or tracts or portions thereof into single lots or a fewer number of lots, and, when appropriate to the context, relates to the process of subdividing, as to the land or area subdivided. Subdivisions shall be classified as follows:

Major subdivision means any subdivision not classified as a minor subdivision, including but not limited to subdivisions of six (6) or more lots, or any size subdivision requiring the creation of any new street.

Minor subdivision means any subdivision creating five (5) or fewer lots fronting on an existing street, not involving the creation of any new street, and not in conflict with any provision or portion of the master plan, official map, Chapter 106 or this chapter.

Exempt subdivisions include the following:

The sale or exchange of parcels between adjoining lot owners, where such sale or exchange of parcels does not create additional lots or tracts capable of meeting the requirements for building sites and does not otherwise conflict with Chapter 106 Zoning; and The subdivision of land within cemeteries.

***

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that section 41 of Chapter 82 of the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to now read as follows:

Sec. 82-41. Generally.

(a) The purpose of the approval process described herein is to assure the orderly development of property and reduction of blight in existing neighborhoods within the jurisdiction. These requirements do not imply an inherent right to subdivide property or to create building sites except as consistent with the public health, safety and welfare of the entire community. It is intended that this review and any potential approval include an evaluation of all aspects that might relate to this decision, including but not limited to: infrastructure capacity or impact, current growth management policies, traffic congestion, and environmental impacts. Moreover, it is specifically within the authority of the planning commission to require specific improvements, easements or other limitations to development rights that further these public interests as a condition of an approval.

(b) The procedure for review and approval of a subdivision consists of three consecutive steps, as follows:

Preliminary plan. Preparation and submission of a preliminary plan, together with attendant items required herein, for review, public hearing and approval by the planning commission. The submission of a preliminary plan and public hearing is not required for a minor subdivision. Improvement plans. Preparation and submission of improvement plans, together with attendant items required herein, for review and approval by officials and agencies concerned with the construction of improvements.

Final plat. Preparation and submission of a final plat, together with attendant items required herein, for review and approval by the planning commission.

(c) The subdivision development process requires review and approval of several different officials and agencies, such as the city and parish engineers, the Shreveport-Caddo Parish Health Unit, the department of water and sewer, traffic engineer and fire department, and others concerned with the proposed improvements.

(d) The subdivider is encouraged to consult directly with officials and agencies having jurisdiction. The reports, recommendations, approvals and disapprovals of such officials and agencies shall be made to the metropolitan planning commission.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that section 74 of Chapter 82 of the Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to now read as follows:

Sec. 82-74. Lots.

Where no public or community sanitary sewers exist, the minimum width of residential lots shall meet the requirements of the Louisiana State Board of Health and the Caddo-Shreveport Health Unit, unless a larger area is required by Chapter 106.

The minimum width of residential lots for all subdivisions shall be 50 feet at the building line and shall have a minimum area as required by chapter 106.

It is desirable that the length of a lot shall be not more than four times its width.

Lots should be of such depth and length to accommodate setbacks as set forth in Chapter 106.

Double frontage lots shall be avoided, except where essential to provide separation of residential development from major thoroughfares, or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation (see City of Shreveport ordinance no. 37 of 1961).

Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles or radial to the street line unless, in the opinion of the planning commission, a variation from this rule will give a better street and lot plan.

Corner lots shall have sufficient width to permit the maintenance of the side street building line after providing a minimum building width of 30 feet, and a side yard, as required by chapter 106, of the interior side of the lot.

Except as permitted in this chapter, every lot shall front on a public street having a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet for a distance of not less than 25 feet measured along such right-of-way line.

***

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 11 OF 2006

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HUTCHINSON 190 FEET NORTH OF GREENWOOD ROAD, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1D, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, TO B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS DISTRICT,   AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of the S 69.74 feet of N 469.79 feet of Lot 10, Marston Park, Unit #1 and the S 75 feet of N 400 feet of Lot 10, Marston Park, Unit #1, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, located on west side of Hutchinson 190 feet north of Greenwood Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from, R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District, to B-1, Buffer Business District.

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 a revised site plan showing fencing to ordinance standards. This plan shall be submitted to and approved by the

Planning Director. Any significant changes or additions shall require further review and approval by the Planning Commission. No permits shall be issued until the revised site plan and/or replatting of lots has been approved by the MPC Director or 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.

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 11 of 2007:

Amend Ordinance No. 11 of 2007 as follows:

Delete Stipulations one, two, and three, and replace with the following stipulation:

“1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with a revised

site plan showing fencing to ordinance standards. This plan shall be

submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. Any significant changes or additions shall require further review and approval by the Planning Commission. No permits shall be issued until the revised site plan and/or replatting of lots has been approved by the MPC Director or the Planning Commission.”

ORDINANCE NO. 12 OF 2007

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTHERN AVENUE AND PIERREMONT AVENUE SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS DISTRICT TO B-2, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, Block C Southside Park Subdivision, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, located on the northwest corner of Southern Avenue and Pierremont Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from B-1, Buffer Business District, to B-2, Neighborhood Business District.

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

1. Site development plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any permits.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 15 OF 2007

BY:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BERT KOUNS AND KINGSTON RAOD, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1D, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AND B-1-E, BUFFER BUSINESS/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT, TO B-1-E, BUFFER BUSINESS/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT, LIMITED TO “GENERAL RETAIL AND OFFICE USE AS PRESENTED AT THE JANUARY 3, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING”, 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 4, South Ridge Commercial Area, Unit No. 3, and Lot 1 South Ridge Addition to Southern Hills, Unit No. 8, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, generally located on the southwest corner of Bert Kouns and Kingston Road, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District, and B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended Use District to B-1-E, Buffer Business/Extended Use District, limited to “general retail and office use as presented at the January 3, 2007 Public Hearing”, only,

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

A. Applicant shall install a 15’ landscape buffer to include 10 ’ as a natural undisturbed wooded buffer of trees and the remaining 5’ of the proposed 15’ landscape strip as a landscaped buffer area.

B. An 8’ solid fence of cedar, redwood, or durable pressure-treated wood materials, or solid wall of brick or concrete shall be located along the entire southern boundary of Parcel B, adjacent to residentially zoned property.

C. The hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Parcels B and C.

D. All buildings located on Parcels B and C shall have no mechanical equipment (air conditioning, heating, etc.) mounted on the rooftops.

E. The final site plan shall be approved by the Planning Director and shall be in substantial accord with the preliminary plan in regard to retaining walls, screening, curb cuts, landscaping, parking, and building placement and scale. Any significant changes or additions to the approved site plan shall require further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

F. The on-premise signage for the development on Parcels B and C shall be designed with sensitivity to the character and quality of the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Specifically, no signs attached to the building shall be higher than their respective soffit lines. All on-premise signage not attached to the buildings shall be placed in a grouped arrangement and shall not be higher than the lowest soffit line of the nearest building situated on the specific parcel.

G. The “Extended Use” classification is granted for the following uses:

1) All uses listed as “uses by right ” in B-1 Districts

2) Antique store

3) Apparel and accessory store

4) Appliance store sales and repair

5) Aquarium supplies and sales

6) Artificial limb manufacture

7) Auto parts store, retail; no installation, repair or rebuilding of parts permitted on premises

8) Bakery, retail

9) Barber shop or beauty shop

10) Bicycle sales and repair (no outside storage)

11) Blueprinting and photostating

12) Bookstore

13) Business machines store or agency (including computer sales and service, and electronics equipment sales and service)

14) Camera and photographic supply store, photographic studio and photographic processing

15) Candy, nut and confectionery store

16) Dairy product sales (yogurt and ice cream)

17) Delicatessen

18) Drug store

19) Dry goods store (paper goods, cards, gifts, etc.)

20) Embossers, including printing from a standard office copier

21) Film processing

22) Fix-it shop, limited to small items, indoors only, and no outside storage of items

23) Fruit store

24) Fur sales, finishing and storage

25) Floral shop

26) Floor covering sales

27) Furniture sales, repair, and upholstery

28) Garden supplies store, handling packaged fertilizer and no other types of fertilizer

29) Gift shop and home accessories

30) Hardware store

31) Hobby supply store

32) Jewelry store

33) Laboratory, dental or medical

34) Laundry and/or dry cleaning pickup station

35) Lawnmower sales

36) Leather and luggage store

37) Library or reading room

38) Loan or finance office, only those items which can be sold by any other use in this district can be displayed or stored on premises, within and enclosed structure

39) Locksmith

40) Music store (instruments, electronics, records, and tapes)

41) Office equipment and supplies store

42) Optician

43) Package and parcel pickup (not more than 3,000 sq. ft.)

44) Paint and wallpaper store, retail

45) Pet grooming facility, limited to the grooming of household pets and other small animals, no outside kennels or overnight boarding

46) Photographic studio with processing

47) Picture framing and/or mirror silvering

48) Print shops

49) Shoe sales and repair

50) Sporting goods store (no outside storage or display)

51) Studio for professional work or teaching of any form of fine arts, photography, music, drama, dance, but not including a commercial gymnasium

52) Telephone exchange, but not including administrative offices, shops or garages

53) Toy store

54) Tobacco store

55) Variety store (limited to the sale of items which may be sold by any other use in this Extended Use District

H. 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.

ORDINANCE NO. 16 OF 2007

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MANSFIELD ROAD, 1000 FEET SOUTH OF WEST 70^TH STREET, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRY DISTRICT, TO B-3, COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of property located on the west side of Mansfield Road, 1000 feet south of West 70^th Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from I-1, Light Industry District, to B-3, Community Business District.

A tract of land located in Section 27, T17N-R14W, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, more particularly described as follows: From the SE corner of Lot 21 of Thrift Subdivision, Unit No. 6, run thence N’ly along the E line of said Thrift Subdivision, Unit No. 6, 136.02 feet; thence run S89°59’08”E a distance of 546.51 feet to the P-O-B of the tract herein described; thence run N0°00’52”E a distance of 170.00 feet; thence run S89°59’08”E a distance of 275.00 feet to a point on the W R-O-W line of Mansfield Road (U.S. Hwy. 171); thence run S13°49’00”W, along said line a distance of 175.05 feet; thence run N89°59’08W a distance of 233.24 feet to the P-O-B. Said tract containing 43,200 square feet (0.992 acre).

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.

ORDINANCE NO. 17 OF 2007

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 70^TH STREET, 920 FEET EAST OF MANSFIELD ROAD, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM B-3, COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO R-3, URBAN, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of property located on the north side of West 70^th Street, 920 feet east of Mansfield Road, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from B-3, Community Business District, to R-3, Urban, Multiple-Family Residence District.

A tract of land in the SW/4 of Section 23, T17N-R14W, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the SW corner of said Section 23; thence S0°40’30”E a distance of 0.45 feet along the W line of Section 26, T17N-R14W, to a point in the centerline of W 70^th Street; thence S89°19’30”W a distance of 1.65 feet along said centerline of W 70^th Street to a point; thence N0°40’30”W a distance of 50.00 feet to a point on the N R-O-W line of said W 70^th Street; thence N89°19’07”E a distance of 189.58 feet along the said N R-O-W line to the SE corner of Lot 1, of Mansfield Crossing Unit 1 Subdivision and also the SE corner of tract of land; thence N89°20’23”E a distance of 30.93 feet along the said N R-O-W line to the SE corner of a tract of land and also the P-O-B of tract herein described. Thence N13°27’56” E a distance of 449.42 feet along the E line of said tract; thence N89°21’15”E a distance of 206.14 feet along said tract line; thence N13°28’00”E a distance of 845.58 feet along said tract line; thence S89°21’15”W a distance of 237.09 feet along the N line of said tract to the NE corner of a tract of land; thence S89°21’15”W a distance of 263.08 feet along N line of said tract to the E R-O-W line of an 80 foot Courtesy Lane, thence N13°28’00”E a distance of 870.36 feet along said E R-O-W line to the NW corner of tract herein described; thence N90°00’00”E a distance of 1005.18 feet to a point on the E line of Tract No. 1; thence S00°18’30”E a distance of 1210.80 feet along East line of said Tract No. 1 to NW corner of a Servitude of Way, thence S00°18’30”E a distance of 60.00 feet along said E line of said Tract No. 1 to the SW corner of said 60 foot Servitude of Way; thence S89°41’30”W a distance of 311.50 feet to a point; thence S00°35’39”E a distance of 34.93 feet to the NW corner of a tract of land; thence S00°18’30”E a distance of 794.36 feet along the W line of said tract to a point of the N R-O-W line of West 70^th Street; thence S89°19’30”W a distance of 209.49 feet along said N R-O-W line to a point; thence N00°40’30”W a distance of 15.00 feet to a point; thence S89°19’30”W a distance of 35.00 feet to a point; thence S00°40’30”E a distance of 15.00 feet to a point on said N R-O-W line; thence S89°19’30”W a distance of 610.04 feet along said R-O-W line to a point; thence N00°40’30”W a distance of 20.00 feet to a point; thence S89°20’32”W a distance of 20.82 feet to the P-O-B of tract herein described, said tract containing 42.717 acres, M/L.

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.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Resolution No. 100 of 2006: Authorizing the release of mortgages and cancellation of promissory notes executed by Shreveport Publishing Corporation (now Snap Property, LLC) in favor of the City of Shreveport in connection with the neighborhood improvement leveraging project and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Introduced June 13, 2006 – Tabled - November 28, 2006)

2. Ordinance No. 122 of 2006: An Ordinance to amend portions of Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances relative to traffic and vehicles and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester) (Introduced August 22, 2006 – Tabled - November 28, 2006)

3. Ordinance No. 131 of 2006: Amending certain sections of Chapter 38 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to housing and property standards and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Introduced August 22, 2006 – Tabled November 28, 2006)

4. Ordinance No. 204 of 2006: An ordinance amending the 2006 Budget for the Riverfront Development Special Revenue fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Disparity Study) (A/Lester) (Introduced November 14, 2006 – Tabled December 12, 2006)

5. Ordinance No. 205 of 2006: An ordinance amending the 2006 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Introduced November 14, 2006 – Tabled December 12, 2006)

6. PROPERTY STANDARDS APPEAL: HBO0600239 – 4133 San Jacinto Avenue (G/Bowman) Mr. & Mrs. Ricky Swift, 3020 Regent Street, Shreveport, LA 71109 (B/Walford) (Postponed December 21, 2006 until March 26, 2007)

7. PROPERTY STANDARDS APPEAL: HBO0600281 – 2524 W. College Street Mr. Billy Draydon, 2536 W. College Street, Shreveport, LA (G/Bowman) (Postponed December 26, 2006 until March 26, 2007)

8. PROPERTY STANDARDS APPEAL: HBO0600290 – 4000 Pixley, (F/Shyne), Mrs. Beatrice King, 3805 Lakeshore Drive, Shreveport, LA 71109 (G/Bowman) (Postponed January 8, 2007 until February 12, 2007) Decision rendered February 12, 2007

9. PROPERTY STANDARDS APPEAL: HBO0600291 – 3430 Palm Rd, (F/Shyne) Mr. Freddie Albrite, 3425 Palm Road, Shreveport, LA 71109 (F/Shyne) (Postponed January 8, 2007 until February 12, 2007) Decision rendered February 12, 2007

10. ABO APPEAL: Mr. Marcus Stephens, 8500 Jackson Square Apt., #18E, Shreveport, LA 71115 (D/Wooley) GiGi’s Martini Room, Commerce Street, Shreveport, LA) (B/Walford) (Postponed until outcome of upcoming trial)

NEW BUSINESS:

ZONING APPEAL:

CASE NO. BAC-1-07: 204 Texas Street, Verdell Evans, Full Moon Bistro, LLC, northerly side of Texas Street, 100 feet south of Spring Street. Special Exception in a B-4 District for a business with on-premise consumption of high alcoholic content beverages (lounge) with 4 pool tables.

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Shyne to uphold the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Councilman Walford: I think we kinda lose site of what can happen in the B-4 District. It’s very, very difficult for some businesses to maintain their 60-40. One long established restaurant recently had to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and change their classification to a lounge, even though they still function as restaurant because at audit time, when they went to reapply for their alcohol license, they were not making the 60-40. They were bona fide restaurant, and it’s just one of those traps that they find themselves in, and I think Mr. Evans’ actually smart to go ahead and apply as he did, instead of finding himself at year end caught in that trap. So, I think he’s going to do an excellent job there. Mr. Evans is a little different than a lot of the folks starting these businesses downtown because he’s not leasing. Mr. Evans bought the property.

Councilman Shyne: Really?

Councilman Lester: Yeah.

Councilman Shyne: I’m sorry, but - - -

Councilman Walford: And I think that’s a bold step, in our downtown is something that I’m very glad to see. And with that I will call on Mr. Lester.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I agree. For any of the members that have not had an opportunity to go and visit what Mr. Evans is doing, he has spent and inordinate amount of his time and his resources, to take this building, that has not been in the stream of commerce, that has been lying dormant easily for 15 or 20 years. Has done a lot of the work himself to make this - - - to put this business back in the stream of commerce, and to say that it’s nice, I mean is a - - - when I saw it, and I told him, I was like you know this doesn’t belong in Shreveport. It really is something that you’ve really got to see to believe. I mean it’s something on the order of a Dallas or a Houston, or any other major city. It really, really is that nice. And for someone who has made the type of investment that he has made, that wants to give it a shot, I mean, I’ve been on this Council long enough to know, doing business in the downtown area is a tough go, and we’ve bent over backwards for just about every business owner down there, whether they be nightclub, lounge, or whatever. Whether they be restaurants, and I just believe if someone is making the type of investment, and as the Chairman has said, has bought and purchased the building, not lease it, that wants to try to make it work, then I think we owe it to that person to try to make it work. Again in the downtown area, it’s not going to be easy, it’s going to be a tough go. But if Mr. Evans wants to give it a go, we certainly - - - he’s earned the right to have his year to make it work. And people talk about downtown, and obviously we want to be the next great city of the south, but downtown and cities, as opposed to towns are places that you can do a number of different things. And I don’t see his establishment being that dissimilar from the Blind Tigers and any of those other places that are just right across the street. So, I’m encouraged that we have people like Mr. Evans that wants to make that type of investment, and I’m going to do everything I can to support him. And I think this is going to be outstanding. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Shyne: Is Mr. Evans in the house? Would you stand? Okay then. Extremely proud of you Mr. Evans. I’m not a swinger anymore, but I’m proud of you.

Councilman Long: I was going to say that I’ve heard that the establishment on the corner across the street at MoJo’s might be serving food very soon as well. I think it’s good that we have more opportunities to eat good food in downtown Shreveport, and I too welcome your inclusion in this, and I hope you have good music too.

Councilman Shyne: I like barbeque.

Councilman Webb: I just was going to say I know Mr. Evans, I worked with him out at General Motors, and he just took an early retirement. So there is no going back, so I wish you well and success with your business and hats off to you for taking the risk you’re taking, and I hope it works out for you.

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman, could I take Councilman Long’s comments to indicate that in the event that Mr. Evans might be in need of a good guitar player, that he might know of someone who might be interested and available?

Councilman Long: Well, several of my bands may be, but I don’t want that to be a condition of my vote.

Councilman Walford: Again, I am asking for a ‘yes’ vote, and the other comment that I would make was his approval was unanimous with the Zoning Board of Appeals/

Councilman Shyne: Good.

Councilman Walford: So, I would ask you for a ‘yes’ vote at this time.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Shyne: Now, that was one vote that I made early so I could make sure that I had it up there.

Councilman Long: Had I abstained, I could ask for a job now.

PROPERTY STANDARDS APPEAL

HBO0600221 – 831 Prospect Street (B/Walford), Mr. Michael Scarlato, 831 Prospect Street, Shreveport, LA 71104 (B/Walford) (Postponed January 23, 2007 until February 12 ,2007)

Decision rendered February 12, 2007

ABO APPEAL

Mr. Michael Weaver, 120 Maplewood Drive, Haughton, LA 71037; Hustler Club (Déjà vu), 220 Commerce, Shreveport, LA)(B/Walford) Decision rendered February 12, 2007

SOB APPEAL

Mr. Michael Weaver, 120 Maplewood Drive, Haughton, LA 71037; Hustler Club (Déjà vu), 220 Commerce, Shreveport, LA)(B/Walford) Decision rendered February 12, 2007

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES:

Councilwoman Bowman: I would like to let everyone know that we’re going to have a Public Safety Committee meeting, next Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. Also, I would like to remind everyone especially the citizens of District G, of our Town Hall Meeting that the Mayor and Council will be having this Thursday at 6:00 p.m. at the Louisiana State Museum, and I’m looking forward to having everyone attend.

Councilman Walford: Did you have any from Audit and Finance?

Councilman Long: Well basically, we just went over the audits of the casinos that we do business with, and all that was pretty satisfactory. I think that one thing that did kinda come out of the report, or out of the meeting, and Councilman Lester may have some comments on as well, is that one of the things that was addressed was the various advisory committees that operate within the context of the - - - between the City and the casinos, and some issues were addressed there, but one of the things that we talked about was the minority business participation, what we can do to try to encourage and develop more minority business participation with the casinos, and part of this is gonna kinda be out of our jurisdiction from the standpoint that some of these regulations that apply to the casino industry and its vendors is very (inaudible), very tedious, and a lot of paperwork involved, so at some point and time, we may develop a resolution to send forth to Baton Rouge to folks to try to task them with developing a more streamline process to help minority business, and frankly any business, do business with these casinos in a way to avoid (inaudible) to shams and the potential abuses of these availabilities, but I think that also there is a notion of an idea of having a local-state certified body or group that could help identify and certify these minority businesses which would take a load off the vendors and the casinos themselves, when it comes time to do business with these folks. So anyway, there was a good meeting, and some good information came forth from that.

Councilman Walford: And for your committee, our contract with the cable T.V., now with Comcast, formerly Time Warner, requires that they provide us with audited financial statements to allow us to determine if their franchise fee is correct. I requested those through Mr. Thompson, what about two weeks ago?

Mr. Thompson: Ten days, two weeks.

Councilman Walford: So, I will get those to your committee as soon as we get them, and would urge y’all to take a look at those as far as compliance with our contract with them.

Councilman Lester: Are they going to give you more than one page this time?

Councilman Walford: For the benefit of others, Mr. Lester and I were not real happy with what we saw last time. Talk about abbreviated, it was abbreviated.

Councilman Long: Very good. I will look forward to that.

CLERK’S REPORT: None.

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

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:32 p.m.

____________________________________

//s// R. M. Walford, Chairman

____________________________________

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

Clerk Note(s):

*** The special meeting to address an appeal for the revocation of permit to sell alcoholic beverages at Phat Katz Lounge, 4303 Greenwood Road, Shreveport, Louisiana, has been rescheduled for February 12, 2007. The meeting will be held in the Governmental Chambers, 505 Travis Street, Shreveport, Louisiana, at 4:00 p.m. or immediately following the regular Shreveport City Council Administrative Conference, whichever occurs later. (G/Bowman)

*** Items postponed until a specific date may be considered prior to the postponed date.