CC 3827

03 19 07

Council Proceedings of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana

March 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 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 13, 2007, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Wooley.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Webb.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester (Arrived at 3:05 p.m.), Walford, Long (Arrived at 3:03 p.m.), Wooley, Shyne, Webb and Bowman. 7. Absent: None.

Councilman Walford: Before we move to the approval of the minutes of the last meeting, the Mayor is out of state. This is more for the benefit of our T.V. audience than those of you here present. When the Mayor is out of state, the Council Chairman serves as Mayor Pro Temp, and therefore cannot vote. So, I will not be voting today, and that is the explanation why. At this time, is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Wooley to approve the minutes of the Administrative Conference, Monday February 26, 2007 and Council Meeting, Tuesday, February 27, 2007. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Long, Wooley, Shyne, Webb and Bowman. 5. Nays: None. Out of Chamber: 1. Abstained: Councilman Walford (Mayor Pro Temp). 1.

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

Mr. Dark: Mr. Chairman, we have two groups here to speak to you today, and I will defer to you as to exactly when in the meeting, you’d like to have them. One of them is representatives from Comcast, and the other is representatives from Friends of the Municipal. The latter was apparently requested by Councilman Lester who is not here at the moment, and I don’t know whether you’d like to defer that in the belief that he’s going to be here in a while. If he is here, then perhaps it would be a good time to go ahead and recognize Fred Fuller who is the General Manager for Comcast, and go ahead and do that under Mayor’s communication is that’s alright with you, that would be a good time.

Councilman Walford: I have no objection, unless the Council Members object.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman, I have an objection, and it’s not because of the gentlemen from Comcast, but we have a special guest who is here who needs to get on the highway going back to Monroe, and we don’t want him driving fast. He’s one of our precious human resources here for Shreveport, and not only for Shreveport, but for the State of Louisiana, and also for America. Hollis is the kind of person that you can look at and say that he’s been able to enjoy the American Dream. Hollis grew up here in Shreveport, ran track for Fair Park High School. He set all kinds of records here in the State of Louisiana, and believe it or not, country boy from Shreveport had a chance to go to the Olympics, to represent this great country of ours, The United States of America. Hollis, we are so proud of you, and we really appreciate the accomplishments that you’ve been able to accomplish, and I just wanted you to come forward and say hello. And you might have a few words of inspiration that you’d like to bring to the Council and to the Citizens of Shreveport. Hollis Conway. Did you need a motion from me Mr. Chairman?

Councilman Walford: I take it that he’s a distinguished guest. No, I don’t think we need a motion.

Mr. Conway: If we had that vote at my house, I’d loose. I want to first say thank you to all of you, because as I say everywhere around the country, I am not who I am by myself. Because of so many people who helped me, and so many people who paved the way for me. And so, I’m kinda honored to be here. I travel and I speak a lot, and I meet a lot of people and I recognize the importance of what you’re doing, and what you’re allowing to happen in this city in the lives of kids, in the lives of corporations, and in the lives of all of us together, and so I just want to say thank you. I was born in Chicago and my dad moved down here because his brother went to Southern, and he was living here. Everybody knew him as Buck, but he was coach out at Captain Shreve, and I grew up right on Damien Street right over in Queensborough, and went to Fair Park High School, and - - -

Councilwoman Bowman: District G.

Mr. Conway: Ma’am?

Councilman Walford: She want’s to make sure that it’s pointed out that it’s District G.

Councilman Shyne: District G now, but when he was growing up, it was District F

Mr. Conway: Well, I grew up, and it seemed like I didn’t have a lot of opportunity, I’m the youngest of seven kids, and we had a lot of issues to deal with, but God has truly blessed me to go on and go to two Olympics, win the Silver Medal, Bronze Medal, to travel the world, to jump 7’ 10 ½ “ and set three American records. Have a lot great accomplishments, but I recognize that it’s because of people like you, and people in the community, and People like Forrest Dunn here who have paved the way to make it possible for me to achieve my dreams, and I just pray that you continue to do what you do, continue to open doors, continue to make it very easy for young people to grow up in a great community, great city like Shreveport to accomplish great things. We have a great history, great athletes, many people come right out of this community. And many people don’t know, but Jackie Joyner Kersey, one of the greatest athletes in the world, I think was born right here in Shreveport. So, I just came to say I appreciate you as I head down the road. I’m here often speaking in schools and in the communities, and doing other things and if you need me, I’m here as a resource to just try to do what I can so that we can all better this great city. Thank you.

Mr. Dark: Just remember, he can jump up over Mr. Shyne’s chair from there.

Councilman Shyne: Again, I just want to let you know that we’re proud of you. Cause Mike, when he was at Fair Park, I remember when he was a little skinny kid, because I was teaching there, I think I might have been a teenager myself.

Councilman Long: Did you scare him, is that why he jumps so high?

Councilman Shyne: Yeah, yeah. But again Hollis, thank you and you’re always welcome to come home.

Mr. Conway: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dark: At your request, we asked Fred Fuller, General Manager for Comcast to come appear before you today, and he’s here. Has another gentleman with him. They are acutely aware of why you want to talk to them, there are some things they’d like to say to you about what they’re trying to do to fix those problems, and it would be a good opportunity for you to ask whatever questions you had. As I told Mr. Fuller a moment ago, we have this conversation all the time about crime. Even if you think your service is wonderful, if the perception is that it’s not, then you have a problem. And that’s what I think they’re dealing with right now. Both reality, and perception. And so Mr. Fuller is here, and be happy to recognize him, and have him come to the front.

Mr. Mike Wells: With the Council’s permission, I’m going to get started, and then we’re going to toss it Fred here, if that would be alright. Good afternoon, Members of the Shreveport City Council. Here as you know, is Fred Fuller, our Comcast General Manager here in Shreveport, and I’m standing where Fred normally would be standing, but this gentleman’s been up for about 30 hours now working on some of the issues, and so I’m going to get things started, and again, open it up for questions. So, we can address any of your concerns. I have a brief statement. And I’d like to begin with - - - as a little bit of background, Comcast acquired the cable system in Shreveport in July of last year, and we immediately began plans to transition from the existing call center from the existing network to a Comcast owned network, and a Comcast owned and managed call system. This really takes any third party out of the loop and will limit your possibility of problems. I’m happy to report that this past week, we transferred a majority of telephone calls to a Comcast owned and managed call center, and we’ve begun the transfer of our telephone customers, and our high speed internet customers to a Comcast owned network. This portion of the transition has gone well, but what has not gone well is this past weekend, we had a failure of a data controller. And this is the device that communicates with all of the digital boxes that are located in our customers homes. It controls anything interactive like anything Pay Per View, the interactive guide. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the overall system transition, or the daylight savings time that changed this past weekend. With this failure, there was a potential of service interruptions to approximately 40% of our customers, and these are customers with the digital box. But not all of the 40% experienced the problem, and we know that not all of the boxes shut down. We also know that customers without a box should not have seen any interruption with their service at all. The 60% of the customers were not affected. I offer this merely to explain the scope of the issue, but we want to leave you with the understanding that we feel if one customer is interrupted, that’s one too many. When the data controller failed, our engineers worked feverishly to correct the problem, and it was determined to be hardware problem, and a replacement unit was sent in from a nearby Comcast system. This type of failure is a rarity, and both Fred and I have 25 years plus in the Cable Industry, and we’ve only seen this occur one other time before. This is not a type of equipment that crashes. Now we all understand and have seen computer crashes, and we really feel that’s the best description of what we experienced over the weekend. With the new equipment in place the engineers have really been working to reprogram the data controller to get it back on line. We’re hopeful and optimistic that we’ll have all of the issues corrected by the end of the day. Again, we want to express our sincere apologies to all of our customers who have experienced some type of service problem. Our goal was to make this transition as transparent as possible for our customers, and we do apologize for any inconvenience. And with that said, we will do everything we can to minimize any type of service interruptions in the future. We will continue to keep you updated, and between Fred and myself, if there are any questions, we’d be happy to address those.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman?

Councilman Walford: I just had a feeling that Mr. Lester was waiting to speak.

Councilman Lester: I’m going to be really brief, because- - -, thank you Mr. Chairman, I probably like many people have been thrown off seriously this morning, because the first light that I see in the morning after the alarm clock is that green amber that helps give me context as to what time it is, and certainly being an hour behind is a bad situation. I would simply say this. Understand where we are as a council. For the last I would imagine two weeks or three weeks, we have been getting a rash of calls relative to the cable service, or lack thereof. And our position is we want to let our constituents know that we are trying to do something, when led myself to call, and I do want to thank Bill Robertson at the Public Service Commission, to contact him to get in contact with you guys relative to maybe answering some of the specific questions that the Council Members have relative to service. I would simply say this. We had a similar scenario with Cingular, and they came, and made certain representations as it relates to service and things of that nature. And after they made those representations that things were going to change and get better, that necessarily wasn’t the case. So, I would just caution you that if there some issues that are going to take time to work out, and if there are some technical difficulties, tell us so that we can tell our constituents. Because the last thing that we would want to do is to leave here thinking that you know what? Everything is going to be fine in 72 hours, because what’s going to happen is, in 73 hours, our phones are going to ring, and they’re going to say, ‘you know what? They said the problem was going to be fixed, and it’s not.’ I know several other members have some more specific questions, but I just wanted to let you guys know . Because we’ve had those scenarios, and again, it’s no disrespect to you guys, because we try to treat everybody fairly when they come before us, but that is an issue that we have had with another industry. And I know, and I’m not going to steal Councilman Walford’s thunder, that he has another question as it relates to Comcast and another particular issue that has been a sore spot with him. So I’m going to let him deal with that. So, that’s my comment would be.

Mr. Fred Fuller: If you wouldn’t mind, I know you don’t want us to take a lot of time. But I just have a few, at least three issues, that I’d like to talk to you about today. And I’ve been in this system now about five months. As Mike said, I’ve been in the industry about 25 years, and the reason I came to Shreveport, was that I seen that it was a real opportunity here to turn an okay cable system into a system that our employees could be proud of, a company happy with our work, and something that the customers were happy with here. And that’s why I came here. Three major areas of focus for us since really back to November was the customer service center, where we take our calls. And I’m sure you’ve heard a lot about that, but we made a lot of progress bringing all those - - - the majority of those calls at this point, in house with our own Comcast employees. These are employees that we can train in the skills that they need to handle telephone calls or business and internet service. So with the exception of this failure that again was not part of this transition, that’s been going great, and last week, up to that point, we were actually answering calls within seconds versus really leading up to the end of our contract with this vendor, even 45 minutes or an hour that if we could have changed any quicker, we certainly would have. But we started training those people, or hiring and training to get them to this point, to make an improvement and an investment in our system. Second, we felt there was a great opportunity to improve the network here, and one of the - - - this problem as well as maybe other averages and things that you experienced in the past, we think that we can improve on, not only by increasing the capacity of the network itself, so it operates better, but so that we can monitor that plan. And over the past 5 months, we’ve been installing equipment, standby power supplies throughout the entire city. We’ve installed 560 power supplies, and we’re in the middle of putting in status monitoring equipment, so that we’ll know that when there’s an outage in this community before our customers know. And we think that’s key to improving the reliability and for us to get to very high levels. Thirdly, we’ve got to develop our people here. We thought that - - - there’s a big opportunity for that. We’ve increased the local staff 30% since November, and we’re still in the process of training these technicians, so that we can improve the response time, so that really we leave it to where our cable and internet, and telephone is just something you don’t have to worry about. But real investments that will pay off, not in 72 hours, but a lot of improvement steadily over the next few months. The actual internet and telephone, by the way, we’ve already migrated 50% of our customers onto our Comcast network. Now without over promising, even thought they’re physically connected, over the next couple of weeks, we’ll get all these monitoring systems in place. We’ve also got Knox centers that only work for us, versus other companies that use vendors and they’re kind of in line in the priority. We’re our only priority and the customers here in Shreveport, so that will also enhance the service. So, I hope I didn’t take up too much time, I just wanted to give you a few of the key areas that we’re focusing on.

Councilman Webb: Yes, I heard two different time frames. I heard - - - well, I heard three I think. 24 hours, 72 hours, and two weeks. Which one - - - what can we go back and tell our people that the problem is going to be corrected.

Mr. Fuller: Well, I think Mike first touched on this problem with the data system that controls all of our converter boxes. And we do expect to have that running tonight. The call center, sorry I maybe haven’t had as much sleep as normal, but they have already been in operation and this is in their second week. So, that’s - - - I mean, they already made dramatic improvements, in answering calls, and that’ll continue to get better. The next steps as far as all the status monitoring and the phone systems, really those - - - within the next month, we’ll have those in place. The internet and phone switch actually under our physical network, that will be done in just a few weeks. A lot will happen at the same time, but a lot of quick improvement we hope. And as quickly as we can get all the monitoring systems in place, and that’ll really make a difference where we can see things.

Councilman Webb: What are y’all doing with your internet service, Road Runner, or what are y’all doing to improve it?

Mr. Fuller: After this week, customers will be able to change their service to Comcast.net, and they will actually be on our Comcast network. Again on our system and having the monitoring that we have, immediately customers are going to see an increase in the speed of service, and at no extra charge for that service. But that monitoring system will allow us again to see problems before a customer has to call us.

Councilman Webb: The reason why I asked, I’ve only got two rooms in my house that I can even get on the computer in, because it won’t pick up my network. You ever heard of that?

Mr. Fuller: Like the wireless type system?

Councilman Webb: Yep, but I thought it was kind of crazy.

Mr. Fuller: I’d really be happy to take a look at any problem you might be having.

Councilman Webb: Well I really appreciate that, and one thing I wanted to - - - you mentioned y’all were hiring extra personnel. I know the time frame that when people get new cable wires put in their backyard, the time frame from when they go out and bury it is sometimes over a month. And I’ve had new cable in my yard, I’ve turned this into a personal soap box, but I’ve had new cable put in my backyard three different times, trying to figure out why I can’t get my internet provider, and whatever, and every time they come out and bury the cable, nobody thinks to go on the other side of the fence and bury it where it goes up to the cable box. So my neighbor has to put a big rock over it to keep the yard man from wacking it with a weed wacker.

Mr. Fuller: And I don’t know how long that was, but our goal is to handle those much more promptly than a month, more within the week time frame.

Councilman Webb: Cause I know a lot of people use their internet provider in their homes for a business, and this is certainly putting a damper on their business. I’ve been getting a lot of calls like the other Councilmen have too. And they just totally can’t do any business if they don’t have their internet provider. If I worked at home, I’d be one of those who probably be raising cane about it. So, does that mean we won’t have Road Runner anymore? We’re going to have to switch over to - - -

Mr. Fuller: You’ll have at least 90 days to make the switch over to Comcast, and of course you’ll change your email address from there. But that change we’re making not only to get us on to our platform is to get you on to an improved network that’s monitored.

Councilman Long: Mr. Fuller, you might - - - in our conversations, you indicated how much additional monies you’re investing in this market as a result of the opportunities that you seek. You might just want to spill that number so that people will have an understanding of what’s going on.

Mr. Fuller: Yeah, we’re investing millions in this business to - - - Comcast wants to be looked to first for video, and internet, and phone, and it doesn’t happen overnight. And I don’t want to comment, or over promise. I’d like to under promise and over deliver for you. That’s my goal. But we are. I mean, in the plant network upgrades, the power supply, staffing, and training, and vehicles, and other things, but for me personally, and why I like working for Comcast, it’s not just about the money we can make in the community, it’s how good we can make the service in the community. So, we’ll work hard to do that.

Councilman Long: My point was besides just buying an existing business, y’all - - - the number I remember recalling was somewhere around the $20,000,000 level that y’all were actually spending on top of everything else in order to make these improvements that you speak of. So, I think folks at home need to understand that. That they’re in transition. There’s going to be some down time, but in the long run, they will be better off. And to please be patient in the mean time.

Councilwoman Bowman: Yes sir. Also listening to what Councilman Long was just saying about what you’re investing into this community, and certainly, I’m not one to speak against that, and I do appreciate it, however, I do speak on behalf of the average customer that you have. The ones that call me, the ones that email me, those that will be without service, will they be reimbursed for losing the service that they have paid for?

Mr. Fuller: Yes certainly. I mean, anytime you know right now we know all the customers went out, but if the customer contacts us, we’ll make sure to credit their account. One of the reasons that I hesitate to talk about some of the dollar investments, is that’s exactly what it’s about. I don’t want you to have to get a phone call because a customer didn’t have the best service, and that’s our focus, and I wanted to make that point clear.

Councilwoman Bowman: You know I want that answered, because I’m sure that you will be inundated, and speaking of which, when you mentioned that you now have calls coming through certain call centers. Where was the call center before now?

Mr. Fuller: The former company used a business out of Kansas.

Councilwoman Bowman: So, when the average citizen, for instance when I call cable to check on a question or whatever, I wasn’t basically speaking to someone right here in Shreveport, I was speaking to someone in Kansas to tell me about my bill here in Shreveport, or not necessarily my bill, but my service.

Mr. Fuller: Prior to last Monday, that’s right, now the majority of the calls are coming to us. Not that all contractors are bad. We did not experience a good service level with this particular company. And we felt that we could offer a much better service handling it ourselves. But there are other vendors that we use, more on the technical end. The subject matter experts, and internet and phone, but the majority of our calls will come to us now.

Councilwoman Bowman: Okay, and speaking of contractors again, I can recall just Friday, and also on yesterday, that guys were driving through my community, in their, I guess, personal vehicles, but of course they had the Comcast signs on the trucks which said that they were Comcast contractors, and they were basically checking for illegal cable that was set up. That’s what I was told, that they said the reason they were there. And going yard to yard. Well my deal with that was you contract out that work also. Are these local people?

Mr. Fuller: We contract out some of that work, and some of our installation work, but what we’ve been working on since ’06 is hiring additional in house staff. We’ve upped the technical group about 30% so that we could handle a lot more of that ourselves. There’s a need for contractors in our business just because of the up and down kind of seasonality of activity. But our goal is to really handle about 70% of that ourselves, and all of the trouble call work, we want to handle with our own employees. And in the past they have used contractors to trouble shoot some of the problems.

Councilwoman Bowman: Okay, and I can email that back to my citizens or to any citizen who has contacted me, who is having problems, i.e., I’m in the same position as Councilman Lester, because I have three boxes and I rather than looking at the clock, I just glance at that. I mean it’s just automatic over the years. So I can expect maybe tonight to look up and bam, there it is. It’s back on, and on the regular time.

Mr. Fuller: That’s right; we say with about 90% accuracy level, I think we’re good to go. I mean, we’ve had engineers on site for three days. It was kind of like fixing a 747 once in flight, because they’ve had to make these repairs while the system is running. Otherwise, we had the potential of shutting every single customer off, and other services as well. And that’s made it very complicated, but we’re at least 90% certain we can have it done before you get up tomorrow morning.

Mr. Dark: Ms. Bowman, mine came on sometimes between the time I went to sleep, and the time I woke up this morning.

Councilwoman Bowman: Yours came on?

Mr. Dark: Yes Ma’am. The HD box in my bedroom had the right time this morning, and it did not when I went to bed last night. So hopefully, yours will be that way too.

Councilman Webb: Fred Fuller right?

Mr. Fuller: Yes.

Councilman Webb: Okay, and you’re the General Manager?

Mr. Fuller: Yes sir, certainly.

Councilman Webb: Do you have a business card you could leave with me with a contact number?

Mr. Fuller: Absolutely. You have my cell phone on that card, and you can call. Mr. Long’s contacted me a couple of times, and we were able to help him. No, I don’t mind at all. We expect you to as we get through this transition, really that you notice the improvement, and I would like to offer, if I could come back 30 days from now and just report on our progress, I think that’s fair that you know how we’re doing, and what we’ve completed. So, we don’t make it just the next two weeks, next two weeks, you really hear what’s completed, and done and where we’re at.

Councilman Webb: And if you’ll leave me one of those cards, I’d appreciate it.

Councilman Walford: Okay. I’m going to ask a couple if I may. Customer Service. That’s been the primary complaint I’ve had. It’s been more unable to contact than it has the service problems, and I’ve heard some horror stories, about how long people have been on hold, and calls dropped. And as I’m sure you know, the federal guidelines provide that you maintain a 24 hour system, and the calls to the cable system must be answered including wait time, within 30 seconds after the connection is established. If the call is transferred, the transfer time may not exceed 30 seconds. Here’s the kicker. Cable system customers may receive a busy signal no more than 3% of the time. Will your new call center meet that standard?

Mr. Fuller: You’re right about the standards, and those are the standards that we voluntarily agree to meet. Our company in operating here in this system. I’m glad you brought that up because I alluded a little bit to the call center and maybe I didn’t explain this very well, but the call center that was being used before, the contractor besides hiring and training people in our new center to take our calls, we were also very limited because of the Time Warner Networks, billing system, and other things that we’re on is especially in the last month that we used their service, the level of how soon they could answer the phones and all those things that we measure, exactly what you’ve mentioned, really dropped off. And I just want you to know, I mean, in getting through these other changes that we’re making on the networks, that will allow us to move some other resources if we need to. We didn’t have that opportunity before changing our networks. So, it was moved really as fast as we could move it.

Councilman Walford: My next question involves the internet service. You apparently raised the rate on that without notice?

Mr. Fuller: We just restructured our rates, February 1^st. Really what happened is all of the majority of our video customers, well all of our existing video customers, we basically grandfathered at the same rate, and in many cases, well most cases provided more channels without increasing the price. Customers that had our internet service, if they rented a modem from seen a $1 increase. If customers used their own modem, or wireless modem of any kind that they own or purchased, they actually seen a $2 decrease. Customers that purchased our enhanced high speed data that’s a date meg service, faster speed we decreased those prices $14 for each customer. And those are the only three changes that were made to high speed. Except that as we get the networks done this week, we will up the speed on our network, and not increase the prices.

Councilman Walford: And the last one is the one Mr. Lester alluded to. You’re inheriting some of my frustration with the previous company. The contract says that upon request, we can audited financial statements. And I tried to get those previously, and now I understand the request has gone to you all. I did get the in house figures that were provided on which the franchise payments were based. But I would like to see audited financials if we could on a local service.

Mr. Fuller: We would be happy to work with you, to get you what you need.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Thompson, did the request go forward?

Ms. Glass: I was preparing that, and I’m not sure if that has actually gone out or not. I know we’re working on it.

Councilman Walford: If you haven’t received it, it’s coming. And the contract does say that upon request, that you would provide that.

Mr. Fuller: Yes certainly, and we will comply with our agreement in our contract. If you could send that directly to me, we’ll make sure it’s handled proper.

Councilman Walford: That’s all I’ve got. Anything else from the Council? Thank you very much for coming to see us. Next, if I may, I missed introducing someone that I wanted to. Forrest Dunn. Would you please stand and be recognized? You’re a distinguished guest. Two weeks from now, I’m going to ask you to speak, so be prepared. With that Mr. Dark, Friends of Municipal?

Mr. Dark: Mr. Lester has left again, but there was a request from Mr. Lester to have representatives of Friends of Municipal Auditorium here, and there are quite a number of them. When he comes back in, it might be appropriate for him to take that part of the meeting, unless you have objections.

Councilman Walford: Tell you what, if no body objects, lets move to the public hearing. Well, let me back up and ask if any other Council Member has any distinguished guests? Then we can move to the Public Hearing, and come back to Mr. Lester. Councilman Walford: With that I’ll call to order a public hearing on Ordinance No. 33 of 2007.

Public Hearing: Ordinance No. 33 of 2007: ANNEXATION – TAG NO. 06-02: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A 10-acre tract of land located east of East Kings Highway and North of Bagley Road in Section 34 (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Wooley)

Councilman Walford: The public hearing is now open. Is there a presentation from the Administration?

Mr. Dark: The only thing that we would say is that this is an annexation of an existing subdivision approximately 45 lots and the appropriate number of persons, I think in the 70% range have signed the annexation petition.

Councilman Walford: Okay. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this annexation? Let me just say to clear up, this is to enlarge the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A 10-acre tract of land located east of East Kings Highway and North of Bagley Road in Section 34 (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto, so I know I have one request to speak in opposition. Mr. Lloyd?

Mr. Murray Lloyd: (3719 Richmond Ave) I’ve been arguing for years for y’all to put other on there, proposed for, and other. Today and other. Mark Twain said that everybody talks about the weather, and nobody ever does anything about it. I’ve been here mostly on Monday, listening, listening to talk about development. I’ve been here long enough to hear Councilman Shyne talk about how he was born in Confederate Memorial, when it was on Texas Street in the old (inaudible). I didn’t know they had hospitals back then, but - - -

Councilman Shyne: It hadn’t been that long now.

Mr. Lloyd, we were talking about Shreveport being a city of a hundred square miles, and 200,000 people. About ten years ago, we were still talking about people being a city of110 square miles and 200,000 people. Today we’re talking about Shreveport being a city of 120 square miles, plus 10 acres, and less than 200,000 people. We talked about smart growth, we talked about Brownfield, we talked about a little water pressure, we talked about lift stations that don’t work, and still we don’t have a plan for redevelopment. And one thing I learned growing up hunting with Michael is that if you’re going to shoot at something, it’s much more effective if you aim. And it’s even better if you aim effectively. We’re going to need to - - - if we’re going to become the next great southern city, then we’re going to have to start planning our redevelopment. We’re going to have to start taking it seriously, and do something about it. Now the problem is we don’t have the tools yet to do that, and we don’t have all the resources we need to do that. And more importantly, even if when you get to the place where you feel like you’ve got a pretty good plan to put in place, you really don’t have an institution that has the tools and the resources, and the legitimate authority and political will to put that plan in place, and monitor it, and enforce it, and adapt it to keep it up to date. But we’ve got to start with one step, and I would like to help. I hope that, as I said, I’m not for or against this particular annexation, but I wanted to use it as an opportunity to say let’s get started in developing and redeveloping our city. Thank you.

Councilman Walford: Is there anyone to speak in opposition? Is there anyone who would like to speak other beside Mr. Lloyd? Now that I’ve been scolded for that not being here. If not, then this public hearing is closed. And I’m going to go back to No. 5, and Mr. Lester.

Councilman Lester: Yes.

Councilman Walford: You had asked to have the Friends of Municipal here.

Councilman Lester: Oh yeah.

Councilman Walford: We deviated slightly since you were out of Chamber. The floor is yours.

Councilman Lester: Thank you. Good afternoon. I have a question, and when we voted, I believe last council Mr. Walford, on a management agreement relative to the Friends of Municipal Auditorium, and the Municipal Auditorium, there were certain things that I was concerned about. And one of the things that I expressed some concern about was that the Municipal would be an open facility for everyone in the city regardless of their background, regardless of their style of music, regardless of who they were, regardless of the developer. I have become concerned particularly as we’re doing this transition between the City and SPAR, and the Friends of the Municipal, in terms of management with how we’re communicating our fee structure, how we’re communicating other things to the promoters and the people that are putting on events in the city. And here recently, as recently as I believe it was, was Thursday Mr. Shyne?

Councilman Shyne: That’s correct.

Councilman Lester: And I talked to Ms. Bowman, she was unable to make it because of a work commitment. But we had a meeting with the developer who raised - - -, well not the developer, I’m thinking of something else, with the promoter, that raised some very, very troubling concerns that I had relative to how we are going to be working with that building relative to the fee structure, relative to associated fees, relative to cleaning fees, relative to handling of tickets, relative to adding additional fees for preservation. A number of things came out of that meeting that I’m uncomfortable with. So much so, that I asked that we have someone from the Friends of Municipal here. I think it’s time for us as a city and as an Administration through, I don’t know if the proper thing to do is to ask Mr. Dark through Ms. Ragle, convene a meeting between your Board, the Administration, and some members of the Council, because I’m just distressed that some of the things that were proposed go beyond what I believe that our scope of our arrangement was relative to the management and operation of the building and the funds and things of that nature. I mean, it’s one thing for you know, if someone is renting the Municipal Auditorium, and that rent is going back to the Friends of Municipal, but then you want to put a $1.50 per ticket fee for preservation, but the building is not yours, and you’re doing small up keep, but major up keep is still at the part, on the responsibility of the city. And there are several other things that just questions that were raised, and rather than take up the entire time of the Council Meeting today, what I’m going to request is that immediately following, we get together, and certainly invite Council Members to be part and parcel of this process because with where we are as a city, obviously the Expo Hall is being used with the movies, which I think is a good thing. Alright? And some people can afford to go to the new convention center, in terms of events and I think that’s good. And I also think we still have Riverview Hall, and the theatre that is a venue, but I think with us loosing a municipal asset, it is imperative that we make every effort possible to make sure the Municipal Auditorium is open to everybody regardless of who they are or what type of event they want to have, so that people in the city can use that and program that, and I just have some concerns. And it could be something as small as there is a lack of communication, but I will say this. Some of the things that I saw in that proposed contract between the Friends of the Municipal, and a person who wants to rent the building were very troubling to me.

Mr. Don Mooring: I’m in Council District G. And the Friends, we’re dedicated to bringing the Municipal back to its place of prominence in Shreveport, by holding events for everyone in the community. Some of the things we’ve accomplished in our short time at the Municipal, we’ve created a museum. That’s the first and foremost thing we’ve done. We didn’t come here and ask for money, we created a museum out of nothing. Well, I shouldn’t say that, I’ve got about $30,000 worth of stuff in there. I’ve got receipts for most of those, because we went out and bought them. We have started the process of getting the Municipal Auditorium designated in the National Historic Landmark. We hold tours five days a week for kids, for the school kids, for out of town people, for Shreveport people, and we have had visitors from all over the world come there. We are a tourist designation for Shreveport. We’ve brought people in. In the future, some of what that $1.50 was going to do was - - - there’s no stage lights now. They all broke. We’re going to buy stage lights. People right now have to go rent them if they want to have an event there. The front steps are being torn up because that’s the only way to get equipment in the building. We want to get a lift purchased to get the equipment from the back of the building up to the stage. We want to redo the floors in the main arena, and in the ballroom upstairs. We want to redo those. We want to keep the existing original floor but redo them to where they look nice again. And one of our biggest projects is going to be completely redo, oh I’d say 50% of the basement. Turn it into a stage, something like a malt shop where people who hold events, who hold concerts down there, could have a place to eat afterwards. We’re going to build a little chapel down there. So we’ve got some major projects that we’re going to use that $1.50 for. And it’s important to realize this was our first event that we have booked. We just got the official document stating that we could, that we had control for management of the building, for renting the building, we got that at that meeting on Thursday. We still have to send the final contract to the City Attorney. We have to - - - yeah, there’s problems with it. It’s the first time it’s been used. We only have two events booked with that contract, and I’m sure we’re going to be revising it as we go. But we’d be more than happy to talk to anybody here. Present it, make some changes, present it to y’all, and do whatever we can. The Friends is very dedicated, and motivated to insuring the Municipal Auditorium stays a huge thing for Shreveport. And any questions?

Councilman Lester: The reason why I want it to be as open and honest and up front as I could possibly be, and bring as much transparency to this process, is historically, we’ve had some issues with some folks that are a part of the old organization.

Mr. Mooring: Yes sir, I realize that. And we took care of that.

Councilman Lester: And without getting back into it, but just for the public’s knowledge, there was a particular bill in the legislature that would have taken control of the Municipal Auditorium, and given it to an entity, but still required the City to pay for the building, and the City of Shreveport would have absolutely no control over one of our municipal assets. And, but for the swift intervention of many of our legislative delegation in the Senate, it would have slipped right past us, and there was no conversation from anyone with your organization to us relative to this particular piece of legislation, which would have - - - I’m not going to say robbed us of our building, but lets just say misappropriation for a period of time. So, again, what I wanted to do was I understand this was the first event. I understand this was the first contract. But my grandmother would always say, it’s best to have an understanding at the beginning, so when getting mad day comes, everybody will be on the same page. And I would be remiss if we did not have this conversation now as we begin this process. Because the last thing that I want to have happen, is to have the number of promoters, and people who were trying to get that building be confused as to what the process is. And as I shared with your staff person, who by the way, wasn’t the most customer friendly, or whose disposition was not such that they could receive comment or criticism from elected representatives, and the people that signed the contract, that is the basis for her employment. She wasn’t very receptive to that type of conversation. I think Mr. Shyne can speak more aptly to that. What we want to make sure is that we are all on the same page. Because again, when it’s a small issue, and it could be ameliorated with communication, one of the things I suggested was that after we hammer out, exactly what the Friends’ responsibilities are going to be relative to our operating, what things you can charge for, and we don’t believe would be proper to charge for, that needs to be communicated to every person, and every entity that has historically done business with the Municipal. Whether they have not had a concert, or function there in two years or five years, I suggested that we go back over the books, get with Shelly, and her staff at SPAR, and say these are the people who have used this building in the last five years, this is the contact information we have on them. Send this communication to them, have a meeting with those folks, particularly those that are local, and say, ‘this is how we used to do it, this is how we’re going to do it,’ so that from this day forward no one can have any misunderstanding as to how we’re going to operate. And please don’t misunderstand; I have nothing against the Friends of the Municipal. I don’t want that to be misconstrued, and I do believe that the Friends of the Municipal serve a very valuable role relative to the preservation and the programming of the Municipal Auditorium. I do say this however, any group that is passionate about something, their passion sometimes clouds their judgement, or they’re so passionate and so protectionist about a particular venue or an issue, that they see something that is honest criticism, as something that’s an attack. And I don’t want that to be seen. Because I’m not going to get into this deal where people say well, the Municipal Auditorium is only for Elvis, or it’s only for the Burtons, or it’s only for (inaudible) or anything of that nature. Because I know that’s not the truth. Because I know the people that are on the Board, and I know that’s not where they’re coming from. But it is important for us on the Council to make sure that everyone understands what their relationship is, and make it clear that everyone is invited. We can’t control what people think, and we can’t control what people say. But we can make sure that the things that they say are not accurate. And one of the concerns that I had was, some of the things that were being said relative to working with people with that building that were troubling to me, I found at that meeting were in fact accurate, and that’s where I think I said, ‘you know what? Before we go any further, we’re going to have a meeting on Tuesday, we need to hash this out. So once we’ve dealt with this, we can go forward in the future.

Mr. Jeter: Thank you Councilman Lester. Appreciate your concern, and we at the Friends of the Municipal, take your concerns very, very serious. And in reference to what you’ve previously applied to, we’ve already taken that initiative to address some of those particular issues. Most recently as today, we received a copy of the participants that have utilized the Municipal for the last year, so that we can be in the process of identifying those potential tenants, and notifying them of the new contract, as well as getting that contract passed through the City Attorney Office, and make sure that it meets all the legal requirements of the City. We would be glad to sit down with the SPAR Staff and Shelly, and any other members of this Council to iron out the particular fees that we’ve got outlined in that existing contract. Some of the fees that we have in the existing contract, to let you know why we have those fees is because we have the overall maintenance of the facility, the overall cleaning of the facility, as well as the back storage area, the bathrooms, all of those other facilities, we’ve been getting quotes in order to maintain those facilities. The quotes that I’ve been getting to come in and clean the facility after a concert has been basically in the neighborhood of $1,000 for general cleaning. So, we want to make sure that as the Friends, we realize that we’re going to be applying for grants, and other public donations, but that we can meet the needs of the facility, the people that are going to utilize the facility in order to make sure that the building stays in top notch condition, and that we can continue to market the facility as a tourist attraction, for everyone throughout this nation, not just this local area. But in addition to that, we realize that we need fax machines, we need computers, we need adequate up to date materials so that we can continue to be up to date with the services that we are providing to the people that want to utilize the facility. So, we’re going to work in that direction. We’re going to be very, very diligent in making sure that we’re customer oriented, customer friendly, and that we meet the needs of all of the citizens of Shreveport area, as well as everybody that comes to utilize this venue, that’s going to bring entertainment, or whatever the case may be to our city that’s going to reflect positively on the citizens and everybody else that lives in our community.

Councilman Lester: See cause the last thing I want, and I’m really done, I understand, and I don’t have a problem if after we have conversation, that we look at what the fee structure is, and there are legitimate reasons for an increase. What I don’t want us to do is say, ‘well okay, you know what? We realize over the last five years that we have been charging a fee for this building that is so far below the standard, that if we charge the standard now, guess what? We lose all the businesses. So, now we have a fee structure that’s in line with the standard, but now our customer base is gone, let’s just say east. And that’s the last thing I want to see happen. That’s why I want again, sit down and look at what your concerns are in terms of fees, in terms of costs, and understand that the Municipal Auditorium was never meant to be a revenue generator. It was meant to be something that provides quality of life and enhance the overall scope of the City of Shreveport, and the citizens thereof. We pay the tax, and we’ve spent money both from the City, the State, and the Federal level to make sure that the building has been restored to it’s present condition. And while we do want to make sure that it does not deteriorate, we don’t want to be in a situation where we’re looking at the Municipal Auditorium as something that has to make money and so we charge a fee structure so that we can operate necessarily in the black, because that’s not what that’s all about. I’m done. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Shyne: I want to try to cut mine short, because you’ve been up here for a long time, and I had a lot of concerns at the meeting. And one of my concerns was about attitude. I mean, it seems like our concerns were taken as personal attacks, and it was indicated that three or four times that it was personal attacks on an individual. I have people who call me everyday on the phone. Sometimes some of them cuss me out, and some of the agree with me. Some of them put me in the Hall of Fame, and some of ‘em send me to hell. And I just say thank you, yes sir, yes ma’am, thank you, thank you, because I’m dealing with the public. And I think it would be wise if you all would look at who you have dealing with the public. Because a lot of this could have been solved if there had been a different attitude. But I really think I made a mistake by not asking more questions before I signed off on the contract. Because I don’t think the Municipal Auditorium was designed to be operated as a profit making business entity. And it seems like to me, that this is what you need as the Friends of the Municipal. I appreciate what your objectives are. I appreciate your passion. But sometimes your objectives, and your passion might not be in the best interest of the public. And the bottom line is that, that is a public facility. It does not belong to the Friends of the Municipal. It doesn’t matter what your passion might be. It doesn’t matter how much you might love that building. It might not matter what kind of improvement you want to make to that building. The bottom line is that, that is a public building. It is not a private building. And I think the Mayor made the statement about the convention center. What we’re losing millions of dollars. You know we’re not going to lose that kind of money with the Municipal Auditorium, but I would like to see the fee structure at a level where it can be used. It doesn’t make any sense to have a building, and the fee structure is so high until people can’t use it. Because it’s a public building. What I said at the meeting, and I think Shelly is in the process of doing it is re-looking at we might have to restructure the contract. And I would like all of the Council Members here to be concerned. Because you can have a beautiful building, but if it’s not being used. That building needs to be used. People who use it, need to be able to make a profit. Not the Friends of the Municipal. Because the bottom line is if there is any major upkeep, the city is going to take care of that. And if the contract that you’re getting back from people who want to clean the building up that’s going to charge you $1,000, I can send you some folks that clean it up for a whole lot less than that. And I was asking some questions at the meeting, and instead of answering the questions that I was asking, they’d go to something else. I’ve been doing this too long, to step on a banana peel. If I’m making any sense to you. The bottom line is I appreciate what you’re doing. And you gotta understand this is nothing personal. Like I said in the beginning, when you’re dealing with the public, there are certain things that you put yourself in a position. If you don’t want to - - - if you’re cooking, and you don’t want to cook over the stove, then you ought not cook. If you don’t want to be asked some hot questions from time to time, then you don’t need to put yourself in that position. I’d like for us, and I’m saying this to the Administration, and I’m going to say this to the Mayor when he gets back. We need to re-look at how we structure this agreement. We need to take a different look at it. Because I’m having people to tell me, Joe it’s too high. We can’t use the building. It’s a public facility. I know you want to make a profit. But if it gets to the point where your profit is too much, then I think we have to take a different approach. I love you, there is no hard feelings, I hope that we will be able to get together and work this out. I love your passion. I hope you will continue your passion. And I hope that we will continue to meet the objectives that you all have set forth. But I want you to understand now, the bottom line is that this building belongs to the public. And my bottom line is I want to see as many people as possible be able to use this building and promote it to be able to make a profit. Because if the promoters and if the people that use the building are not able to make a profit, then they’re going to stop using the building. They’re going somewhere else. And we don’t want to run ‘em somewhere else. Because we love this building too much. Appreciate it. Love you, thank you.

Mr. Mooring: And I don’ think there’s been a month we’ve been in existence where we actually made a profit. We’re not operating as a profit organization. We’re right now living off the proceeds from the Kevin Costner Concert. That’s going to be gone pretty soon. A lot of the rent goes to pay the employees, which we have to have to keep the building open five days a week. And the fee structure we have is in line with what the City charges. We did add a cleanup fee. Which again we (inaudible), and - - -

Councilman Shyne: Well, I appreciate it, but I think we still need to take another look at it.

Mr. Mooring: And I would love to - - -

Councilman Walford: Let me say this, and it goes back and Mr. Lester is going to nod his head yes. We had a serious problem before because of a breakdown in communication. That’s putting it mildly, wouldn’t you say Councilman?

Councilman Lester: Mildly.

Councilman Walford: And you know what I’m talking about, and it caused a lot of really hard feelings, and I’m afraid of some of what happened last week was the result of poor communication again. And I don’t think we can do business like that. I support Mr. Lester’s idea of us getting together. I will throw this caveat out to all of the Council Members, and Ms. Glass will nod her head yes, no more than three Council Members are going to be able to do this without noticing a meeting and doing it at another time. I see a nod yes. Okay. But we can’t have another situation like this. It was not good for anybody, unless it brings the problem to the surface, and we solve it. And I want to see us do that. But communication, not just with the Council Members, but with those who are considering leasing the building or renting the building for an event and I understand that a comment was made that you’re doing it the same way SPAR was. And maybe we had a problem with communication when it was SPAR. Whatever it is, we’ve got to improve the communication with those who want to rent the building. It’s got to be clear why we have this charge, that charge, and what the purpose is, and if there’s an alternative, lets look at it. I agree with Mr. Shyne that $1,000 sounds like an awfully expensive clean up. I believe there’s contractors out there that would be available for far less.

Mr. Mooring: We didn’t call them back.

Councilman Walford: You didn’t call the $1,000 one back?

Mr. Mooring: No,

Councilman Walford: I’m glad to hear that. That’s some good communication and thank you very much.

Councilman Shyne: Excuse me, but I might be looking at somebody that would clean it up for a whole lot less than that. I won’t call any names.

Councilman Walford: Not now, but I think there are people available. But please I didn’t know anything about what had happened until one of your Board Members called me on Friday. And I certainly would like to be in the loop as well. But communications is a must. We’re kinda - - - this is in its infancy. This is a new concept for the City to turn something like this over for management. I hope that we can use those stumbling blocks as stepping stones, and move on, and move up. But the communications is a must. And this is two strikes against us now, and I don’t want to see a third one. So, we’ve got to keep the communication channels open. And if you have someone, a promoter who is concerned about something, please try to work it out before they have to come to a Councilman, and we have to get in the middle of it. And I don’t think any of us mind doing that, if it’s a valid concern of the promoter. But I’m hoping that you guys can communicate and make things work. So with that does anyone else have anything? Thank you very much for coming. And I would like to publicly thank Councilman Lester for jumping into the situation he referred to back with the legislature, and helping me. And we made a lot of phone calls, and worked very hard to kill a piece of legislation. I understand that one more Council Member, Ms. Bowman has a distinguished guest.

Councilwoman Bowman: Yes, I recognized Mr. Rev. Edie Giles is here with us today. I understand also that you’re (inaudible) been quite a bit in this city over the years, and I just wanted to recognize you, that you were here in our Council Meeting. I remember many years ago, of course, I was a young girl, and you produced “Losing Boy”, and now you have “I’m a Winner Now”. And it’s been 50 years of - - -

Rev. Giles: 40 years in the music career. 50 years total in the trying to learn to play and being able to play.

Councilwoman Bowman: Well look, I just wanted to recognize that you were here and thank you for coming.

Councilman Walford: Thank you for being here with us. With that we will move to reports, and I apologize for bouncing around on the agenda, but I think it served us well.

Reports:

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

Mr. Dark: We provided you information yesterday, and we’d be glad to answer any questions you have today.

Councilman Walford: Any questions from the Council? With that we move to the Property Standards Report. Any questions from the Council for Mr. Bowie? He’s not jumping up this time.

Property Standards Report

Councilman Shyne: Is Ms. Moore back there too?

Councilman Walford: She’s behind the post, and you can’t see her. Mr. Shyne.

Councilman Shyne: Ms. Moore, would you come forward please? I got the information from you and Mr. Dark. Council Members, do you all have - - -

Mr. Dark: It’s a memorandum I wrote y’all today. It’s a one page relative to Mr. Shyne’s question about the change in the number of the in house grass cutters. Put it on your place this afternoon.

Councilman Shyne: At three or four of the Town Hall Meetings, I guess you had a chance to see that lets say that the top three concerns in some areas, cause I think out by Captain Shreve there, they had a good problem that traffic. So that means a lot of money flowing in and out. We don’t have that traffic over in my area, but we got a problem of Property Standards, Code Enforcement. Lots need to be cut. Old cars need to be moved. And I think what I’m hearing, if I can understand what’s in this piece of communication is that you and Tom feel like that you’re staffed at the level in order to be able to solve these problems. Is that or would you like for Tom to answer that?

Ms. Moore: I’d be more than glad to answer. I wanted to clarify we’re talking about the grass cutters, not necessarily our inspectors, and our other staff members specific to the grass cutting.

Councilman Shyne: Right. I’m not talking about the inspectors, because I figure you ought to have enough inspectors. Because I figure Wardell and Jeanette can get out sometimes and be inspectors. But I’m talking about those guys that actually do the work, who actually get the work done, who actually clean up the area. Now, do you feel like that you have enough employees, or do you think that we have enough employees, or do you think that maybe we need to maybe kinda look at, and I hate to use the word seasonal employees, because we always think about farm laborers when we talk about seasonal employees. But do you think that during the summer months we might need to put on three or four more in house workers, and then this would cut down on how much work we contract out? Because look like a lot of time when we contract out a lot of work, we have problems with contractors going out cutting properties that people say they’ve cut already.

Ms. Moore: Well, I think it’s our responsibility as a staff to insure that that does not occur though. I think we need to become more effective and efficient in those areas to insure that those contractors are doing what they need to be doing, rather than having an alternate action for that. When we had grass cutters initially when this happened way back in, I think 1996, they had 16 grass cutters. There were a number of problems associated with that. But when I came three years ago, there were only six. They were working less than 20 hours a week. The workload did not dictate that we have those six employees. During the rainy days, they could not work. During the fall and winter, their workload was reduced drastically. When they were deployed out to work, they worked on special projects, and hot projects that did not necessarily generate an income back to the city. So what we did was, we looked at what we had, we lost some of them through attrition. And some of them just left, and we had one gentleman to die. What we did was we looked at their workload and what could they reasonably do, and work a 40 hour week, and be good employees for us. Also as a result of them only working part time, they were doing inappropriate things and criminal things on our time. We have instances where one employee cut the whole block for a family reunion, and other things, because they didn’t have a full workload. As a result of that, we have increased their productivity by assigning them to special projects, to city owned property; they constantly make sure that they have jobs. When we increase the number of contractors from 12 to 33, we did not necessarily need those contractors. So, the purpose of that was to increase the effectiveness of our program. And to have more contractors so that we can expedite the work and do some of the things that were causing us to even employ these grass cutters. As a result of that, now these four are now working full time, and providing a viable service to our community. Before then that did not occur. Now we’re analyzing our workforce, to insure that Code Enforcement is doing the best that they can do in this department. It may be necessary to hire another paralegal or another office associate, or find more inspectors, but right now, what we see, we don’t see the necessity to have more grass cutters. Also, let me add this. What we did a couple of years ago, we were working with about three non-profits. The youth initiative, where the youth are coming during the summer months, and cutting grass. They’re taking also some of those special projects that the grass cutters used to do. This is at a reduced cost, it’s more efficient, cause we don’t have to call them when it’s raining. It’s just more efficient for us. We’re also trying to work with the Frost Foundation, and (inaudible) the very same thing during the summer months.

Mr. Dark: Mr. Shyne, I’m sorry. May I answer part of your question which is - - - you asked do we have enough folks to do what the public and you, and we feel like is appropriate. We’re not sure we know the answer to that yet. We have committed, and it was before the Town Hall Meetings, but it’s clear based on those that I’m sure there is a higher priority. Crime prevention and Codes are clearly the two top ones. We’re going to do everything we can to determine if what we ought to be doing and try to figure out how to get there. I’m not sure hiring more folks on our payroll to cut grass is the most effective way to get there, but the one thing I do want you to understand is that when we cut down the number of in house folks, we increase the number of contract folks. If you as a Council decide that that’s not the way we ought to be going, then we’ll deal with that, you know at whatever point that happens. But we spend almost double what we spent in 1999 on Codes Enforcement. And nobody in this room will tell you we’re 93% better than we were then. And I think that’s the point that we’re trying to look at. If we keep doing the same things over and over in Codes Enforcement, your successors are going to be talking about this same problem, and they’re going to lynch all of us in the mean time. But it’s just - - - we’re not doing what we need to be doing in Codes Enforcement, or the people that went to those Town Hall Meetings, wouldn’t have had all those comments about us. We’re going to try to figure out how to do the best we can do. And whatever that is, if it’s folks out in the world that we need to increase. If it’s people on our payroll that we need to increase, we’re going to find a way to deal with it, but we have not had a good experience with in house grass cutters, and it would take something on the order of the Council pretty much telling us to, to want to go back down that road right now.

Councilman Shyne: I like that answer better than - - - we got the answer by cutting the staff down. Because evidently you don’t know what the answer is because I get calls everyday about overgrown lots. And when I tell them that Ms. Moore says that she has enough staff to get these lots cut, and the first thing they ask me is, now Joe, who did we elect you or did we elect Ms. Moore? And I have to laugh and say well, you know you all elected me. So, what I’d like to see you all do is kinda like what Tom said. Let’s make sure that we look at this problem, and we look at it very closely, because in my area, Codes Enforcement and crime are the two major problems. Now, I can’t sit here and buy into we’re taking care of these problems, and folks are steady calling me. When they start calling me, and getting on me, then I have to call you to get on you. So, I had to pass it on. So, what I’m saying, I want you all to take a look at it, and in the mean time, I’m going to be taking a look at it. Because when you tell me that you’ve got enough people to keep these lots clean, and they are not clean, then there is a breakdown somewhere. It’s either a breakdown with me, or a breakdown with you, or a breakdown with Wardell, or a breakdown with somebody else. But there is a breakdown. In the areas that I represent, I mean, Codes Enforcement is very important because the people tell me, well look, I pay taxes. What do I pay my taxes for? And I don’t want to get into no long conversation with them explaining to them what they pay their taxes for. I want to see these lots clean. I want to see this grass cut. I want to see these old cars moved. I want to see these old houses tagged. I want to see these old houses torn down because they are safety hazard. It would even make it better for the crime in that area, because so many of them are used as crack houses. People that live next door to them tell me, matter of fact, I don’t know whether he’s listening on T.V., but a man was at my house the other night. He’d had a stroke, coming out in the bad weather. Old crack house right next door to his house has been condemned I think three or four years. He said, Joe when are y’all going to get this house down? I pay taxes. He had to go over there and stop a little old grass fire. Could’ve burned his house down. So, what I’m saying, Ms. Moore, this is a very serious concern. If you lived in the kind of neighborhood I live in, now you might not live in that kind of neighborhood, so it might not be a concern to you. You might live in a neighborhood where you don’t have no dilapidated houses. If I lived out in Spring Lake, or if I lived somewhere else, this would not be a concern. Some parts of my district, this is not a concern. Out on the Pines Road, they’re not concerned about dilapidated houses. They’ve got other problems. Mooretown, Hollywood, Sunset Acres, Werner Park, the bulk of my district, that’s a major problem. I want us to figure out how we’re going to solve that problem. Because if we don’t every Council Meeting, I want you to know it, cause Tom knows it already, and I want the Mayor to know it. I’m going to be going off on this. Because those people need some solutions. You wouldn’t want to stay next door where you’ve got two old dilapidated houses or a crack house right next door to you. If you were Mike Long, you’d get up and move. But see I can’t move, and there are other people who can’t move. So, it’s a major problem, and I’m taking time, and I’m emphasizing this, because I don’t want this - - - I’m not going to let us sweep this up under the rug. If it’s more employees we need, well and good. If it’s less employees we need, well and good. I just want a solution to the problem. And I don’t want you to stand there and tell me, that you think you’ve got a solution. Because evidently we don’t.

Ms. Moore: Mr. Shyne, let me clarify if you may. I certainly did not say that we had a 100% perfect staff, nor and I’m the first to say that we have a tremendous problem in our community. And I’m also the first to say that we’ll do everything within our power to insure that we do the best we can. What I was saying to was, that I’m not sure that the grass crew is the problem, that we probably need more employees. We need to determine where we need those employees. We need to develop a plan for what we’re going to do for Codes Enforcement. We’re on board with that. We’re meeting with the Mayor and the CAO, and others as it relates to that, and I’ll be the very first one to say that we’re committed to this effort. In no form or fashion, do I want the community or the public, or the Council, or this Administration to think otherwise. We’re committed to that, but we want to do it the right way.

Councilman Shyne: When - - - I want you to do it the right way too, but I want it done. I don’t want the right way to be four or five years from now.

Ms. Moore: We (inaudible).

Councilman Shyne: Let me finish, let finish. When you start putting that plan together, and I guess I’m going to Tom with this one. Tom, when you all start putting that plan together, if you’re putting it together for District F, I’d like to be included.

Mr. Dark: You all will be at some point.

Councilman Shyne: That’s right. I’m the point person for that District. So, when we start coming, when we start putting together a plan of action, I want to be included in that plan of action. Because those folks call me, they don’t call you. And they don’t’ call Tom. And I found out now when they call the Mayor’s office now, somebody down there tell ‘em call your councilman. Now, I don’t know whether y’all ever had it happen to you, but this is something new. You know, they got a problem, they call the Mayor’s office. And whoever it is down at the Mayor’s office say, we don’t have nothing to do with that, call your councilman. So, I’m not going to let them keep on putting it on my back, and then I come here, and then the answer I get is we want to make sure that we do it right. But we’re not coming up with no solution. I want us to come up with some solution. And I appreciate the explanations that you’ve given me. But the main thing that I want to hear is Mr. Shyne, we’re going to do a better job, and we’re going to try to try to come up with some solutions to try to solve these problems. That’s what we’re here to do. We’re talking about making this a great city of the south. If you live in a great city of the south, you don’t want to live next door to no crack houses. You don’t have weeded lots in your neighborhoods. Those people are beginning to feel like hey look, this city isn’t concerned about me. Perception. I want those little kids to grow up in those neighborhoods to have a good self concept of themselves, and you cannot do that if the neighborhoods are not kept clean, if they are not kept up. We don’t want to be guilty as a city government. Now, if somebody don’t want to keep the inside of the house clean, we don’t have anything to do with that. But that, that we ought to be doing, I want us to do it well. I want us to do it well, and that’s all I’m saying. And I’m saying it again. I’m going to do this until we get to where we have some solutions to these problems. I’ve been looking at this for the last - - - I’ve been looking at this longer than you have. When you were working somewhere else. Tom and I were having this discussion, when he was head of public works. This is a problem. We’ve got to start coming up with some solutions with some of these problems. We can’t just let them continue on like a cancer. I love you Ms. Moore. Thank you for coming up.

Ms. Moore: Thank you.

Councilwoman Bowman: Ms. Moore, I wanted to let you know that of course, and maybe I should wait to kinda give my concerns on Tuesdays instead of Monday because I gave Mr. Bowie a whole slew of abandoned substandard property in my district. But as far as the grass cutting is concerned, that’s what I wanted to basically address with you. And I want you to try to explain to some of the other Council Members, I’m not sure if they have the same organizations, but I think basically everyone has the neighborhood associations. And I thought it was a good project, a good program that would help alleviate some of the problems that we have basically been having. For instance, and I think the 100 Men in your district, and it is the Queensborough Neighborhood Association in my district, and there might be others maybe in your district, where - - - is that through the Neighborhood Investment Program, where - - -

Ms. Moore: A few years ago, we looked at a lot of the problems that occurred that are associated with Codes Enforcement. We tried to institute solutions simultaneously with the developing an overall plan for Codes Enforcement. Cause we knew that the problems still exist as we try to work on the major problems associated with this. One of the things that we recognized is that there is a tremendous amount of city owned adjudicated property that plagued these communities. We were filing liens on this property annually, we were not getting compensation for them, and they were just eyesores in the community. So, we decided to work with non-profit, also in an effort to find something to do for our youths. And so, we worked with non-profits to mobilize they youth, to go into the summer months to cut grass. They cut grass all summer long.

Councilwoman Bowman: Will that be occurring this summer?

Ms. Moore: Yes it will be occurring this summer as well, and we’ve added two more non-profits to the list. And what it does if they have to be engaged in some kind of social program or educational program at the same time. They can’t - - - they’re not just cutting grass. Once they complete the grass work, and they go into either an after school tutorial program, or some kind of behavioral program, something that also assist them in whatever their issues may be. And this program’s been very successful. Queensborough I think, has done it for three years now, 100 Men has been doing it ongoing. We have another group that works with only city owned property. It’s actually owned by the city. And so it’s been very favorable. And again they come in the summer months, when grass is at it’s peak.

Councilwoman Bowman: Could we utilize the young people from Job Corps? Are they a part of this also?

Ms. Moore: (Inaudible) with Job Corps is through a housing program. They’ve agreed to work with us in rehabilitating some housing using their youth, and their in house construction program, as well as Southern University. So, we’re developing a lot of viable programs that are just beginning to connect, and you can see the impact of it.

Councilwoman Bowman: Well okay, and I appreciate everything.

Councilman Long: Wardell, I’ll get with you after the meeting.

Councilman Shyne: I had one other question.

Councilman Walford: Well Mr. Lester had asked to speak.

Councilman Lester: No, I’ll let Mr.. Shyne speak, and then I’ll make my comments.

Councilman Shyne: What is the function of Shreveport Green?

Ms. Moore: Mr. Jeter was actually here a few minutes ago. He actually works with Shreveport Green, but they do a lot of clean city initiatives, such as cleanups, and we’ve worked with them annually on the annual cleanup. One of the things we plan to institute in NIP is for each one of the NIP recipients to do at least one cleanup in their neighborhood. But we’re trying to create these programs that work in conjunction (inaudible) so you can see a visible impact in our community.

Councilman Shyne: If we need them to come to a neighborhood, who do we call?

Ms. Moore: Cassandra Calloway.

Councilman Shyne: Do you have a telephone number.

Ms. Moore: I don’t, but I’d be glad to get it for you.

Councilman Shyne: And that’s Ms. Calloway.

Ms. Moore: Cassandra Calloway.

Councilman Shyne: Okay, if you could get me that number, I sure would appreciate it.

Ms. Moore: I’d be more than glad to.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman and I just wanted to say I agree that we do, and we can always improve our performance as it relates to Codes Enforcement and grass cutting. But I do want to- - - you touched on it, and I would be remiss if I did not say this. And think this needs to be communicated to all of our city. Grass cutting to Codes Enforcement is like giving somebody aspirin when they’re sick. You’re treating a symptom, but you don’t deal with the disease is the 5,000 to 6,000 abandoned and adjudicated lots that we have in this City of Shreveport. We could have (inaudible), and I’m going to let that marinate for a second. A million dollars of your tax money, rather than fixing your streets, (inaudible) lift stations, goes to cut grass every year. I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather split that million seven ways and fix some streets, and do some things like that. Rather than to always say cut the grass, cut the grass, cut the grass, which yes, we do need to do a better job of cutting the grass, but people need to understand this isn’t our grass. We’re cutting somebody else’s property. They walked away from it. They walked away from the house, they walked away from the lot, they have no respect or no regard for the people in that neighborhood, and nine times out of ten, the people that own the lot aren’t people that live in the neighborhoods. They live on the other side of town, or in California or somewhere like that. And Councilman Walford will tell you, when we’ve gone in and revamped and revised some of our processes with Codes Enforcement, they used to get those certified letters from the city and laugh. And some of them still do. And some of these same people that own these adjudicated lots that have grown up are some of the most wealth people in the City of Shreveport. People whose parents and uncles have streets and subdivisions and what have you named after them. And if you go to finance department and pull their names up, it reads like a Who’s Who of the City of Shreveport. That’s who we need to be jumping on. It’s not about how good do we cut the grass. The better question is why is it that people are abandoning their property, and expect you and us the taxpayer to pick up their loss. That’s the big issue. That’s why we dealt with Faith Builders to try to take some of those lots and give them to somebody to do something with. Our job isn’t just to - - - I mean it’s easy to deal with the issue of just cutting grass. And God knows when your constituents call, hey, it’s March, it’s that time of the year. I want the grass cut. I don’t care about anything else. I want the grass cut, I don’ t care about anything else. And yes, we need to deal with that, but the bigger issue, if we’re not going to continue to have this repetitive questioning every year, every year, then we have to do something about these abandoned and adjudicated lots. And we’ve, since I’ve been on the Council, we’ve changed our Codes Enforcement laws, we’ve had our several members of the legislature to enact new statutes, that give us more power to deal with those lots and cease those lots. Where in the process of us making it easy for the City to expropriate those lots which were, in fact at the SRA, we’re going to take about I don’t know how many it’s a pretty long list. We’re going to expropriate a good 50 or 60 start proceedings in Allendale, and most of those are adjudicated, and vacant for a project. But rather than to continue that process, our legislature, in it’s infinite wisdom, and the citizens passed a constitutional amendment that made it harder for us to expropriate the property that’s a problem. So a lot of our problems and concerns are not just City problems, they are State problems. But that’s an answer that requires more than 30 seconds, and when you have a mad constituent, they don’t want to hear that the legislature passed a bill, they don’t want to hear that somebody from California, hasn’t done what they’re supposed to do, they want the grass cut. I agree with what Councilman Shyne said. It’s a constant, it’s a constant process, but people need to understand that essentially what you’re asking the City to do is, take care of somebody else’s property. And if you don’t want the city to take care of your child, if you don’t want the city and the government to take care of your body, if you don’t want the city and the government to tell you that you can’t carry a gun or those types of things, it’s wrong for you to ask the city for us to take care of your property. And at the end of the day, that’s the big question. That’s the major issue. It’s not about how well, we can cut the grass. I mean, we can tell Mr. Bowie, to tell one of our vendors to get that brown stuff, and make sure - - - kill it all. Now we have fields of brown. No grass to be cut. But that doesn’t stop us the next year. Because that same person, like I said - - - hey, they read like a Who’s Who of the City of Shreveport. In fact, they have a meeting over at - - - I might as well say it.

Councilman Shyne: Don’t say it.

Councilman Lester: I’m going to say it. I’m going to say it. I’m going to say it. I mean, I’m term limited, I’m free. I am free. I am term limited. I am free. They meet over at a certain Mexican Restaurant over in the Highland area.

Councilman Shyne: Don’t say it.

Councilman Lester: And you know they stand up and they say, “Well why is it you are trying to tell me what I can do with my property? And you’re the guy that wants to make me cut this grass, and I’m just buying this for taxpayer purposes, and I’m just buying this because I’m trying to make money.” And my position is yes, but your desire to make money in my district, and enjoy the sanctity of Broadmoor is foul when that lot that you speculated on is causing one of my constituents to have to (inaudible). But these great pillars of the community never decide that you know what, it’s my civic duty to make sure that my lot is cut. They jump up and say, oh no. I’m just a tax sale purchaser. I don’t have anything to do with it. I’m just speculating. I’m really just doing this for an investment purpose. Those are the people that we need to go after. It’s not the Ms. Johnson’s of the world that’s calling Councilman Shyne. It’s the big boys that meet at the Mexican place in Madison Park. For whatever that’s worth. Thank you.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Lester, please understand that in that group, not all of the are dealing with adjudicated property, one family - - -

Councilman Lester: We have some fan club members over there.

Councilman Walford: One family boasted to me that we don’t believe to cut grass, and they owe us a little more that $44,000 right now. Ms. Moore, I’m not going to keep you any longer.

Ms. Moore: I just wanted to end by saying that we are totally committed to Codes Enforcement.

Councilman Shyne: Thank you.

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

Confirmations and/or Appointments:

City Attorney: Ms. Terri Scott

Metropolitan Planning Commission: Ms. Mary Wilson

Mr. Winzer Andrews

Architectural & Engineering Selection Committee: Mr. Ron Weems

Mr. David Aubrey

Councilman Walford: Mr. Dark, I understand you would like a postponement on all of these?

Mr. Dark: Yes sir we would. The Mayor would like to be here for his first appointments to be confirmed.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Bowman to postpone.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman, I thought I was going to get a chance to confirm Ms. Terri Scott today. Where is Ms. Scott?

Mr. Dark: Behind the pillar as she usually is.

Councilman Walford: Yes, but where she sits, I can see her.

Councilman Shyne: Ms. Scott, you don’t have to come forward, I’m just a little disappointed because I thought I was going to have the honor to be able to confirm you today as the, I want to say, the first female City Attorney. Right? Is that right? Not the first Black, but the first female. And I want to be a part of that. I want to be a part of that history making process, and I think Bryan Wooley wants to be a part of that history making process.

Mr. Thompson: You’re not going to be here in two weeks.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda

The Clerk read the following:

1. Resolution No. 36 of 2007: A Resolution authorizing the Mayor to dedicate Plano Street between Old Blanchard Road and Old Blanchard Road in honor and memory of Dr. Louis C. Pendleton, Dentist and Civil Rights Activist and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Bowman, seconded by Councilman Shyne to add Resolution No. 36 of 2007 to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, on yesterday, the Administration suggested that the Council might want to add the GIS Administrator to the Agenda to be voted on next week. If you want to do that, it would require a suspension of the rules.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Long to suspend the rules to add the appointment of the GIS Administrator. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Long to add the appointment of the GIS Administrator.

Councilman Walford: Would somebody please read the name into the record.

Mr. Thompson: I think it’s Ms. Jennifer Zumbado.

Councilman Shyne: Is she here today?

Mr. Dark: She’s expected to be confirmed in two weeks. So, she is not here today, we just wanted to get her on the agenda, because your process tends to be that you’d like to see them on the agenda, and then vote on them the next time.

Councilman Shyne: Now Tom, will this one be history making too? Is this the first time we’ve had a female?

Mr. Dark: I think so.

Councilman Shyne: All this history going on. First Black Mayor, first female City Attorney, first female GIS Administrator.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

Public Comments (Agenda Items to be Adopted)

Mr. Jerry Edwards: (400 Texas Street) I represent Audrey Park, Limited Partnership. This is a rezoning application, C-11-07. It’s a request for a variance of a zoning ordinance to allow the development of a leasing office and community center. It was recommended unanimously by the MPC to be approved back in the February meeting of the MPC, and it’s going to house a leasing office, computer room, and a multi-purpose meeting room for the community in the Audrey Park Subdivision. Any questions about that?

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION

TO INTRODUCE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES:

RESOLUTIONS:

RESOLUTION NO. 28 of 2007

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BELLE CHERRI LAND CO., LOCATED AT 5919 BUNCOMBE RD., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Belle Cherri Land Co. be authorized to connect the proposed building to be located at 5919 Buncombe Rd. to the water & sewer system of the City of Shreveport.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Webb to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1

RESOLUTION NO. 29 of 2007

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BELLE CHERRI LAND CO., LOCATED AT 5923 BUNCOMBE RD., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Belle Cherri Land Co. be authorized to connect the proposed building to be located at 5923 Buncombe Rd. to the water & sewer system of the City of Shreveport.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Webb to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1

RESOLUTION NO. 30 of 2007

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING METHVIN’S ACE HARDWARE, INC., LOCATED AT 9830 MANSFIELD RD, TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

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

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Alvin Lamar Methvin & Janice Marie Methvin Pilinski be authorized to connect the building located at 9830 Mansfield Rd. to the water & sewer system of the City of Shreveport.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Webb, seconded by Councilman Shyne to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION

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

RESOLUTION NO. 27 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WITH JAMES BURTON INTERNATIONAL GUITAR FESTIVAL, INC., AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY: Councilman Walford

WHEREAS, James Burton International Guitar Festival, Inc., a Louisiana non-profit corporation, will sponsor the 2^nd James Burton International Guitar Festival at Municipal Auditorium and Festival Plaza, March 30 - April 1, 2007; and

WHEREAS, James Burton, a Shreveport native and award-winning guitarist, has made significant contributions to the music industry, both nationally and locally, for more than fifty (50) years; and

WHEREAS, some of the proceeds from the festival will be used to provide scholarships and financial assistance to foster and encourage the continued education of children and young adults in the Shreveport; and

WHEREAS, the festival contributes to the development and enhancement of the creative economy and music industry in the City of Shreveport and provides an expanded worker base of qualified musicians and other specialized industry employees which is a public purpose; and

WHEREAS, event organizers anticipate that the festival will attract thousands of visitors, vendors and patrons to the City of Shreveport; and

WHEREAS, the economic impact of the this year’s festival is estimated to be in excess of $2,000,000.00; and

WHEREAS, the festival provides an economic and cultural benefit to the citizens of Shreveport and surrounding areas which is a public purpose; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport desires to participate with the James Burton International Guitar Festival, Inc., in the production and sponsorship of the 2007 festival.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the Mayor is authorized to execute a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with the James Burton International Guitar Festival, Inc., relative to the 2^nd James Burton International Guitar Festival, said agreement to be substantially in accordance with the draft thereof which was filed for public inspection with the original of this resolution in the Office of the Clerk of Council on February 27, 2007.

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 application 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 declared repealed.

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

Councilman Shyne: Question. I have a friend whose a musician, I’m just wondering - - - did I let the cat out the bag Michael?

Councilman Walford: You’re trying to make him turn red.

Councilman Long: I don’t know, I haven’t been invited yet.

Councilman Lester: I heard there was going to be pickin’ and grinnin’.

Councilman Long: Yeah, I know that’s going to happen.

Councilman Lester: How many of y’all got the Hee Haw reference? Raise your hands.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1

2. Resolution No. 31 of 2007: Authorizing the Mayor to accept a donation from Chemtrade Logistics/Chemtrade Refinery Services, Inc. and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Wooley to postpone. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1

RESOLUTION NUMBER 32 OF 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lot 441 & East 69 Feet of Lot 440 Geographic Number 181417-013-059700

Jones Mabry Subdivision, Unit No. 7

Municipal Address: 62789 None

Council District “A”

Lots 10, 11 & ½ of the alley lying to the Geographic Number 171403-018-008100

rear of and adjacent to John H. Fetzer Subdivision

Municipal Address: 3120 Lakeshore Drive

Council District “G

East 35 Feet of Lot 34 & West 10 Feet Geographic Number 181331-072-011000

of Lot 35, Block C, Highland Park Subdivision

unicipal Address: 252 Wall Street

Council District “B”

A Tr in Lots 11 & 43, Jones Mabry Subdivision Geographic Number 181416-001-024000

Municipal Address: 2946 Martin L. King DriveCouncil District “A”

Lot 6, Block 24, West Sport Subdivision Geographic Number 181435-023-000600

Municipal Address: 931 Madison Avenue

Council District “A”

Lot 7, Block H, Pine Grove Subdivision, Geographic Number 171403-009-000700

Less R/W (Drainage)

Municipal Address: 50186 None

Council District “G”

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Long to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1

RESOLUTION NO. 33 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 190 OF 2002 AND RESOLUTION NO. 98 OF 2003 TO REQUIRE REPORTS CONCERNING THE OPERATION OF THE CONVENTION CENTER AND THE CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By: Councilman Walford

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 190 of 2003, and Resolution No. 98 of 2003, authorizing and directing the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Shreveport, or a designee of the Mayor, to provide the City Council with a detailed report of the status of the Shreveport Convention Center Project and the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel Project until the projects were completed; and

WHEREAS, because the Shreveport Convention Center Project is substantially complete and the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel Project is nearly complete, the City Council now wishes to amend said resolutions to require periodic reports dealing with the operations of the facilities rather than the construction of the buildings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the BE IT RESOLVED and the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED clauses of Resolution No. 190 of 2002 and Resolution No. 98 of 2003 are amended to read as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened that the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Shreveport, or a designee of the Mayor, is authorized and directed to provide the City Council with a detailed written report concerning the operation of the Shreveport Convention Center and the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel each quarter beginning with the quarter ending March 31, 2007 and each quarter thereafter.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said reports shall be delivered to each member of the City Council and the office of the Clerk of Council on or before the fifteenth day of April, July, October and January of each year.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said reports shall contain the following minimum information concerning the operation of the Shreveport Convention Center: number of event days; attendance; direct event income; ancillary income; total event income; other operating income; adjusted gross income; indirect expenses, and net income (loss). The report shall show this information for year to date actual; year to date budget; the variance of actual to budget, and the actual for the same period the preceding (last) year.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said reports shall contain the following minimum information concerning the operation of the Shreveport Convention Center Hotel: occupancy rate; occupancy income; ancillary income; total income; other operating income; adjusted gross income; indirect expenses, and net income (loss). The report shall show this information for year to date actual; year to date budget; the variance of actual to budget, and the actual for the same period the preceding (last) year.

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, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1

RESOLUTION NO. 36 OF 2007

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO DEDICATE PLANO STREET BETWEEN OLD BLANCHARD ROAD AND OLD BLANCHARD ROAD IN HONOR AND MEMORY OF DR. LOUIS C. PENDLETON, DENTIST AND CIVIL RIGHTS

ACTIVIST AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY:

WHEREAS, Councilman Joyce Bowman has requested that Plano Street

between Old Blanchard Road and Old Blanchard be dedicated in honor and memory of

Dr. Louis C. Pendleton, Dentist and Civil Rights Activist.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City

of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened, that the Mayor on behalf of the

City is authorized to dedicate Plano Street between Old Blanchard Road and Old

Blanchard Road in honor and memory of Dr. Louis C. Pendleton, Dentist and Civil Rights

Activist.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution

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

items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid

provisions, items or application, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are

hereby declared severable.

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Bowman, seconded by Councilman Wooley to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1

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

1. Resolution No. 34 of 2007: A resolution authorizing donation of surplus Shreveport Police Vehicles to the City of Gibsland, Louisiana, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 35 of 2007: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the cooperative endeavor agreement with the Louisiana Economic Development Corporation and Stageworks of Louisiana, LLC in connection with an economic development award program loan; to authorize the Mayor to execute all documents on behalf of the City of Shreveport with regard to the amendment; and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Wooley to introduce Resolution No(s). 34, and 35 of 2007 to lay over until March 27, 2007 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

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

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, because of some discussion yesterday, we’d recommend that you do 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.

1. Ordinance No. 39 of 2007: An ordinance amending the 2007 General Fund Budget, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 40 of 2007: An ordinance amending the 2007 Airports Enterprise Fund Budget, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 41 of 2007: An ordinance amending the 2007 Golf Fund Budget, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance No. 42 of 2007: An ordinance amending the 2007 Budget for the Police Grants Special Revenue Fund, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 43 of 2007: An ordinance amending the 2007 Water and Sewerage Enterprise Fund Budget, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

6. Ordinance No. 44 of 2007: An ordinance adopting the 2007 Budget for the Information Technology Internal Service Fund, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

7. Ordinance No. 45 of 2007: An ordinance authorizing the City to close the at-grade railroad crossing of the UPRR (Union Pacific Railroad), and Live Oak Drive located between Shady Lane Drive, and Mansfield Highway, and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Public Hearing - March 27, 2007) (E/Webb)

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Long to introduce Ordinance No(s). 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 of 2007 to lay over until March 27, 2007 meeting.

Councilwoman Bowman: Mr. Dark, if I’m not mistaken, I think it was - - - it might have been 44. I’m looking for it. When I questioned yesterday in reference to the survey or the process to outsource and find someone to as far as classified employees were concerned, that which one of these?

Mr. Dark: That’s part of the General Fund which is 39. And I promised you that by next Council Meeting, I would have you some information.

Councilwoman Bowman: Well, in the mean time, I found something last night, and I did get some copies made, that was in the LMA Magazine. And we can get them to the other Councilmen. But it’s the Louisiana Municipal salaries and benefits are now available at your fingertips. I think this is worth looking into, and it’s called survey navigator, and it is the only salary and benefits website offered by the LMA just for you. It’s LMA is designed to be your one step human capital resource for over 60 positions. It’s a state of the art system and allows salary and benefits comparisons based on a variety of demographics including population, and regions. Anyway, I’m gong to skip most of this other. What it basically says is it’s available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And I think it’s something worth looking into. It’s my understanding yesterday, you mentioned it would basically cost $70,000 to get someone else to do the actual - - -

Mr. Dark: I just logged on to that. The people that we are proposing to hire are the people who actually put this together. What they’re doing - - -

Councilwoman Bowman: Then why are they saying free, and we want to pay them $70,000.

Mr. Dark: Well, they’re two different items. Our personnel folks do in fact do a salary survey from time to time, and they look for comparable cities. This is a way to actually do a lot of that without ever having to call anyone or do anything. I’m just looking at the same thing I think you pulled up. This would let you get salary and benefit information for particular positions. I think what we’re trying to do is determine what sort of personnel classification plan that we want to use, in what order we want to rank the salaries, which ones goes to which levels. It’s a considerably larger task than just simply saying what does the Superintendent of Streets and Drainage make in Mamou. Which is what this will tell you.

Councilwoman Bowman: Is that what it is basically saying? I haven’t looked at the website just yet, however, it is recommended by the LMA, in addition to that, I am looking at any means that we can - - - $70,000 that cannot be done in house, and that’s what I was informed yesterday, because of certain reasons. And I understood those reasons. However, when you look at this, and no one - - - I mean - - - we just - - - you know, one thing I’ve learned in the short, short period of being here is that we always have the tendency to tell why we cannot do things, and that you know we (inaudible) and no, no that’s not good enough, that’s not what we need, I think that we basically need to start at least looking at things. And it’s not just that. I’ve also noticed in the past a few weeks or so, that when certain issues came up in my Town Hall Meetings, and dealt with issues here, and then letters were sent back to the citizens saying that’s not the city’s responsibility. The City can’t do this, the City can’t do that. And then the citizens still sits back and doesn’t have anything. Well, here I am today, when I bring this forward, instead of looking at it to find out about it, to see what it really is about, then you come back, and say Ms. Bowman I went and I researched and I found out exactly what this was about. And it’s not what we need. But then just click on it and say these are the same people and this is not it is not acceptable to me. Thank you.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, and Shyne. 5. Nays: Councilwoman Bowman. 1. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

8. Ordinance No. 46 of 2007: An ordinance authorizing the City to close the at-grade railroad crossing of the UPRR (Union Pacific Railroad), Levy Street located between Linwood Avenue and Texas Street, and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Public Hearing - March 27, 2007) (B/Walford)

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Shyne to introduce Ordinance No. 46 of 2007 to lay over until March 27, 2007 meeting.

Councilman Lester: My motion for introduction is to allow us to have the conversation on this on the record. I’m not taking a position on this one way or the other, because obviously it’s something in District B. I just have the attitude that if someone, whether it be the Administration or one of the seven of us ask to put something on the agenda, and it goes through the proper process to place it on the agenda, I think we should at least hear it. We could vote 7-0 against it, I just think if it’s down there, we should at least hear it, chew on it, we might spit it out. Or we might accept it. So my motion is for introduction, and I would certainly be listening for Councilman Walford’s comments on which way he thinks the Council should go. Because it is something that is in fact in his Council District. But I have no dog in this fight, and I do not have a position on it one way or the other, just for the principle of it’s on the agenda, I think we need to vote or at least have the conversation.

Councilman Wooley: Mr. Chairman, since it’s in your district, I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.

Councilman Walford: I would very much like it to even be considered. I would appreciate a ‘NO’ vote on this. As you heard yesterday, Mr. Lester missed this, but typically for the railroad, we do a two for one swap. The reason DOS put this on, and Mr. Norwood, you might want to come forward. The railroad would like to have a four to one swap, and I frankly am a little bit tired of the idea that the railroad runs the city. These streets belong to the citizens, and this particular one, I think is a critical street in District B, serving businesses there, and I don’t want it closed, and I would urge a ‘NO’ vote. Mr. Norwood, perhaps you would address this for us.

Mr. Norwood: Yes sir, the Mayor (Mayor Hightower) did a letter to the railroad, and we’re trying to get a crossing in Shreve Park, the south access road, so we could finish the project. As you said, normally, it, as in the past, has been a two for one swap on closures. And we’ve dealt with the railroad on this several times. Both Union Pacific and Kansas City. With this one, Mayor Hightower wrote a letter and we suggested four locations for closure. Well, the railroad came back with a letter stating okay, we’ll take all four. There were two on Levy Street. That’s why we included it.

Councilman Walford: But I believe there is a federal standard that’s out, and I can’t remember the acronym that says two for one.

Mr. Norwood: It does, and again the railroad came back and said we want all four. I would suggest that we pursue the two closures, and see what we can work out with the railroad there.

Councilman Walford: And I would suggest the same thing, and I’ve made it very clear to Mayor Glover, in our conversation that I’m opposed to this one, I’ve gotten traffic counts and it’s a busy little street. It serves Center Point Operation Center, it serves Murphy Bond and Warehouse, along with a number of other businesses in there, and I just think it would be a very poor decision to close. But I appreciate - - -

Mr. Norwood: Also, if we make the closure traffic would have to exit Texas Street, where we’d have to make some improvements and curb (inaudible) turning movements. Probably cost $20-25,000.

Councilman Walford: So basically what would happen is vehicles going to and from Arkla would have to go back to Texas Avenue - - -

Mr. Norwood:: Instead of using the Linwood exit.

Councilman Walford: West to Mansfield Road, South to Kings Highway, and then back to get any easterly direction.

Mr. Norwood: Yes sir. The turn off Linwood is much more convenient of course, Linwood being a much wider street than Texas.

Councilman Wooley: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I was just curious as to why do we let the City go back offering four streets, and the norm has been two?

Mr. Norwood: We didn’t offer them. We didn’t say we will close four streets. We gave four locations as possibilities. The railroad took that and sent us a letter back saying okay, close all four.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think the last three minutes have proven my point. We are considering the merits of the issue without actually allowing the issue to be placed on the agenda. If that’s what the Council wants to do, then I am only one vote. I just think from a process standpoint, if any entity out there ask that something be placed on the City Council’s agenda, we owe it to them regardless of whether we’re going to support it or not. We owe it to them to at least allow that matter to be placed on the agenda, and have discussion, which we just did. I did not want to interject with a Point of Order, but the reality of it is, if I would have asked for a Point of Order, this last part of the conversation would have clearly been out of order. My concern is a procedural one. Procedurally we should, and listen. If Councilman Walford is not in favor, and I think I’ve indicated in some emails that I agree with him that we should not in fact do this. But the bigger issue is procedurally and process-wise, are we going to say I don’t like something, so I’m not even going to allow it to happen on the agenda. I think that sets a bad precedence. Just like if someone whether they are going to put us in the Hall of Fame, as Councilman Shyne said, or if they’re going to call us a bad name, anybody can walk through that door, sign up for at least three minutes, and say what they want to say. And I think for us to pull something off the agenda, that has been timely put on there, I think that sets a bad precedence. So my vote is going to be ‘YES’ for introduction. At the end of the day, do I think that we should uphold what the railroad is doing? No I don’t. But procedurally, the way we, City Council handles it’s business, I think that’s a bad - - - it sends a bad message for us not to even - - - for us to consider something and not consider it at the same time. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Motion failed by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen Long, Wooley, Webb, and Bowman. 4. Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Shyne. 2. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman, I was persuaded by Councilman Lester’s argument, but it seemed like there were other members who were not persuaded.

9. Ordinance No. 47 of 2007: An ordinance authorizing the City to close the at-grade railroad crossing of the UPPR (Union Pacific Railroad) and Church Street located between Flournoy Lucas Road and Martin Street, and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Public Hearing - March 27, 2007) (E/Webb)

10. Ordinance No. 48 of 2007: An ordinance closing and abandoning the 20 foot-wide alleyway located between Allen and Pierre Streets in the Flanagan Subdivision in the TAL 9 located in the NW ¼ of Section 36 (T18N-R14W), Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

11. Ordinance No. 49 of 2007: An ordinance changing the name of the Civic Center to the James C. Gardner Building, and to Otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford/F/Shyne)

12. Ordinance No. 50 of 2007: An ordinance amending the 2007 Capital Improvements Budget, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Long to introduce Ordinance No(s). 47, 48, 49, and 50 of 2007 to lay over until March 27, 2007 meeting.

Councilman Webb: Mr. Norwood, I know I’ve already had some calls in reference to one of these locations that are in opposition of closing it. And that’s the reason why I had requested when I talked to Mike Strong that I definitely - - - I personally don’t have a problem with it, but I wanted to have a public hearing on it. Can you get me traffic counts on this?

Mr. Norwood: For Church Street?

Councilman Webb: Church Street and the other one that we did a few moments ago, that - - - Live Oak.

Mr. Norwood: Actually, Live Oak is about 4,000 vehicles a day, counting both directions. Church Street is about 100 vehicles a day.

Councilman Webb: I know that, but - - -

Mr. Norwood: And I can get you the actual numbers.

Councilman Webb: Okay, if you provide them, that’ll work.

Mr. Dark: Mr. Webb if you click on the attachment on the electronic agenda for Live Oak, it’s there. The one for Church is not, although I’ve seen it, so it probably should have been.

Councilman Webb: Well I knew Church had to be real low, but - - -

Mr. Dark: The Live Oak one, if you click on attachment on your electronic agenda, it will actually have that page.

Councilman Webb: Okay, well if we have that information, then I’ll click on it.

Mr. Norwood: I actually have one with me, and I can get it to you after the meeting.

Councilman Webb: Okay.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

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

1. Ordinance No. 32 of 2007: An ordinance declaring certain adjudicated properties to be surplus and to authorize the Mayor of the City of Shreveport to donate the City of Shreveport’s tax interest in certain surplus adjudicated properties, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester/B/Walford)

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Lester, seconded by Councilman Shyne to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

2. Ordinance No. 33 of 2007: ANNEXATION – TAG NO. 06-02: An ordinance enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A 10-acre tract of land located east of East Kings Highway and North of Bagley Road in Section 34 (T17N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Wooley)

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Shyne to adopt.

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m going to be voting ‘NO’ on this. And Mr. Wooley, it has absolutely nothing, no disrespect to you or your district at all.

Councilman Wooley: None taken.

Councilman Lester: Okay, let me say that for what it’s worth. I do agree though with what Mr. Lloyd said. I think at a certain point, particularly in this section of town, I think I said once before at a certain point, Shreveport has got to stop. Because if we keep going, I fully expect that we’re going to be annexing Mansfield in a minute. I mean, we’re literally at the Desoto line as we speak. And rather than to repair, and rehabilitate areas in Shreveport that were once habitable, and once vibrant, it seems that we’re going to stretch the city further, and further, and further southeast. Philosophically, I think we at a certain point, we’ve got to decide that Shreveport has got to stop growth by annexation, and we have to repair the inside of the City. And for us to at one point say that we’re concerned about the tax, literally and figuratively on our infrastructure, that we’re concerned about water pressure, and that we’re concerned about putting municipal services to a breaking point, and yet we continue at almost a break neck speed of making the city this large amoeboid shape is something that concerns me greatly. And as someone who represents an inner city neighborhood, I just can’t in good conscious continue to vote to annex the Parish, when we’re not doing all that we need to do to deal with our issues on the inside of Shreveport. I mean, we just had a pretty good conversation about the weeded lots and things of that nature. And we talked about how the fact that properties are being abandoned. So, it’s not a question that we don’t have the land, but rather than to deal with the hard issues of why areas have been in decline, we’re going further and further away from the city. I think if a person wants to live outside the city limits of Shreveport and live in the Parish, I think they should be afforded that right to do so. Bur for us to continue to allow the city to spread and sprawl, is I think, a recipe for continued disaster. And I’m not going to be voting for that anymore. Mr. Wooley, this is no disrespect towards you personally, I just think my vote is a principle one, and I don’t have a problem with that. I just can’t see how we can rationally say that we’re having water pressure issues, and these types of issues, and yet and still, we’re going to continue to stretch, and stretch, and stretch, and stretch. And at the same time, when we look at the inner core of our city, it’s dying, but rather than to deal with something that’s difficult and fix it, we’re running. And I’ve never run from anything. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Long: I too agree with Councilman Lester’s position on this situation. I did have a couple of questions on this particular subdivision. Are they already tied in on our city water at this time?

Mr. Norwood: Yes they are. And I will say this, they are contiguous to other city limits right there, so this is not a stretch or a jump.

Councilman Long: Okay, again I think Murray Lloyd’s comments earlier are very well taken. I made a promise when I ran for office that I would try to uphold the fact that we need to try to redo what we already have inside instead of trying to stretch out, reach out, and get bigger and bigger. I know when I was a Parish Commissioner, this was a major concern to us as commissioners because we were losing - - - you know it was a tax (inaudible) for the City - - - from the Parish to the City. Lots of ramifications on this whole thing. I just think that the message needs to go out to developers that they just can’t expect to have it their way anymore. That this current Council, this Councilman and I know Councilman Lester, I can’t speak for some of these others. But there is definitely a shift in attitude with regard to just going out there and trying to put a 2 or 300 unit development and expect us to just take it on in, and put up with it. You know, I just think we need to get away from that, and I think if it’s very important that we have a master plan. So, I think that we really, really need to move forward with that as soon as possible. So, on this particular request, I’m going support it, but I tell you, I’m going to be looking at everything past this point very carefully. Thank you.

Councilwoman Bowman: Yes sir. And I want to make it quite clear. 99.9% of the time, when I cast a vote on this Council, and it deals with a certain person’s district, I listen to that Council Person, as to what their views are and what they feel is best for their own district. And 99% of the time go with that Council Person, because you ought to know what’s best for the area that you represent. When the meeting first started today, before the meeting started I got with Councilman Wooley, and I said what is this? Are you for this? Because the annexation - - - I’m the annexation ‘scream queen’, I screamed about that the whole time I was on the Commission, because the City would take it and wrap it. And I kept wondering how you’re going to - - - the infrastructure is going to support all of this. And that was my question to Bryan. Is everything okay with this. No. 1 is it contiguous, and all of this other. But he explained to me that, yes I know about this, and it’s basically a gated community, and it’s the back side of something to that effect that he told me was the reason that, that portion would be annexed with the other, along with what’s already there, what’s already existing. Councilman Wooley, I will vote with you, basically because that’s your district. And there’s going to be some stuff in District G, that I will feel strongly about, and I want the same support. Because I ought to know what’s best for the people that I represent. Thank you.

Councilman Wooley: Since I represent this district, I do want to say a couple of things since we’re discussing somewhat annexation policies. I know I’ve gotten with Mr. Norwood today on certain infrastructural issues as it relates to South Shreveport. Obviously we continue to grow, there’s continued to be new developments everyday. I think we’ve actually voted on or going to vote on a rezoning here for Norris Ferry Landing, as they continue to add to the area. I think it’s very important that if you look at annexation and the whole process, which I do have a copy of the annexation policy of Shreveport, and I am reviewing that even now. I understand ones concerns with infrastructure. I’ve asked Chairman Walford to be a part of the Infrastructure Committee, because it definitely affects everyone in the district, and it’s definitely an area that continues to grow. So, I want to make sure that we take a very balanced approach to growth. To me that’s smart growth, having a balanced approach. And I think that’s the key here is have a balanced approach, not to say ‘NO’ abruptly to development, because I think that’s kind of short sighted inhibitions of the city as well. Because if you have an area that continues to grow, then granted we all know that Shreveport is not growing in population. No one is ignorant to that fact. It’s simply a relocation of individuals to our area. But if they choose to live in an area, I don’t think we as a city should stop them from moving into that area, because we do not provide the proper infrastructure to do so. So, in saying that, we must have a balanced approach to the infrastructural needs, but not put a halt to new development. We have visionaries and you have gentlemen out there or women out there who want to spend money to bring new development to Shreveport and it’s going to be very attractive to the people that come. And I’ve talked to developers, and people coming from out of town moving into new developments. So, we want to see that happen, because if we don’t do that, if we don’t make way for new development, then people are going to leave the city, they’re going to live somewhere else. And yes when it comes to taxes, we’ll lose that tax base, which everyone on this Council and anyone in this city ought to know that’s very important, (inaudible) to the daily operations of our city. So, we want to see a natural progression that’s been occurring naturally, and lets not stop it, lets help it. Lets support it, and move forward which I think could be a very balanced approach. So, I’m definitely for annexation, as long as it makes sense. That’s why I’m part of the Infrastructure Committee, hopefully, to see that happen. Because I don’t want to stop it. Why should we stop it. And regardless, and no disrespect Councilman Lester, but regardless of if we cross over into Desoto Parish, if it’s going to benefit the City, and we can uphold that and sustain that, I think we take it. Thank you.

Councilman Walford: Let me make a comment if I may. Oh Mr. Shyne, I’ll get you, me and then second comment to Mr. Lester.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Wooley, I see why you won the election. You are a very effective speaker, and you really raised some good points. Cause I guess I kinda feel guilty and proud cause I’ve been here to see. We’ve had an aggressive annexation policy I guess since the days of John Hussey, wouldn’t you say Tom?

Mr. Dark: Yes sir.

Councilman Shyne: That’s been a part and I’ve been a part of snatching it from you all. And I didn’t really realize that it was hurting you that much until today. If you’d told me maybe a few years earlier, I might have had a different approach. But I think what has caused our infrastructure problem more than annexation is the lack of the city and the lack of past administrations and councils spending money in order to upgrade and to keep our infrastructure where it ought to be. And I think that’s - - - you’re talking about an Infrastructure Committee, but Tom, I don’t think we’re gong to have very much money. I don’t see our bonding capacity, maybe unless it’s something you can pull off the computer, I don’t see our bonding capacity that’s going to let us do too much infrastructure. (Ringing phone).

Mr. Dark: The money’s coming right there.

Councilman Lester: No, that’s my wife and I’m going to answer it.

Mr. Dark: Good move on your part.

Councilman Shyne: Yeah. So, I think you’re right in what you’re saying. You know we can’t afford to stifle growth of the city because we might have an infrastructure problem that was caused by the lack of planning, and the lack of aggressively spending money, knowing that we have an aggressive annexation policy. So, I like what you said. I see why you won. Mike you too.

Councilman Walford: Let me chime in even though I can’t vote. And I have to say both or all three, Mr. Lester, Mr. Wooley, and certainly Mr. Shyne were very eloquent in making some points. And I understand Mr. Wooley’s position that we do have to consider annexation and growing, but Mr. Lester made a point, and I think it’s something that we all need to recognize. And let’s just think about driving I-49, and we pass a rather large area of Mr. Shyne’s district that has the infrastructure, but there’s noting there. We’re looking to the west from the interstate, and we’re seeing an area that it isn’t dying as Mr. Lester said, it’s dead. And we’ve got to bring it back. You get to the end of the interstate, and if you drive down Pete Harris, you look to the left, to Mr. Lester’s district, to the right to my district, and you know here we go again, the infrastructure is there, but the area is essentially dead. Now fortunately, they’re bringing Allendale back, but I think we’ve got to address that in other areas, besides just growing out and spending our dollars on the infrastructure demands of the new areas. But what I keep hearing said Mr. Shyne, is out of sight, out of mind. So it’s very easy not to spend the money on our existing infrastructure, but I will have to tell you that Mr. Lester and I have the oldest infrastructure in the city. Some of that money needs to stay in close and not be going out to new areas. With that, Mr. Lester, did you have another comment?

Councilman Lester: Yes please. Thank you. You know the developers that want to move south are going to do that irregardless of what we do from the Council level. We’re not going to stop developers from going southeast, outside the city limit. In fact, I would argue that our policy of allowing people to move outside of the city, do their developments, knowing full well, that when they ask to be annexed, and then get the city services, have encouraged the sprawl as opposed to turn the other way around. Again, we spend a million dollars every year cutting grass, and I would suggest to you that that million dollars cutting grass isn’t done in the far east parts of town. That million dollars is being used in our inner city areas. We talk about smart growth, but the process that is diametrically opposed to smart growth is sprawl. And that’s what we’ve had. We’ve not had smart growth. We’ve had sprawl, and lets just call it what it is. It is a tax on infrastructure, that’s just the bottom line. If we decide that that’s what we want to continue to do, that’s fine. Vote that way. But lets not fool ourselves or kid the public and call it what it is. Because that’s what’s happening. If we’re going to make the decision because we always want the new development to be inside the City, then lets say that. But lets not tell people that if we vote ‘NO’ to stop annexing that we’re going to stop the process. Because we’re not going to stop. Because people are going to continue to do it. And I would say we always want to be pro development, but as I appreciate it, I do know a few people out there. There’s a developer that’s on a municipal body just east of here that wants to do a large scale development in that area, and it’s pro development, but I haven’t seen any movement on that and I know the people in that area are up in arms and have said no way in the world would they want that particular development because it would be a tax on infrastructure. So lets not say we’re that we’re always pro development. Because many times on this Council, people have approached us with a development, and we voted against it. So we’re not always pro development. I do think that yes, we do need to look at things on a case by case basis, but the larger picture is are we going to continue to be enamored by that which is shinny to the dereliction of those that cannot afford to go to the shinny places, or are we going to say, ‘you know what? Regardless of whether you live in an inner city area or regardless of whether you live in a new gated community, we’re going to decide that your infrastructure needs are just as important. Because what we’re doing is as we continue to sprawl, is we continue to send our tax dollars further and further out. And we have a limited and finite amount of money to maintain that which we already have. And rather than to maintain that which we already have, we’re continuing to put down new infrastructure, and new sewer lines, it makes it that much more difficult to maintain that which we already have. Now if we had an unending pool of resources and there was some magical pool of money, then no, this would not be a problem. But as I drive through my district, and see the effects of sprawl, I just can’t in good conscious, continue to vote for that. And we can agree to disagree, and that’s fine. That’s what this body is about. But lets not say that we’re pro development and anti-sprawl, when in fact us being so pro development and so enamored with new things is the cause of the sprawl. And is the cause of the debt infrastructure wise of the inner core of this city. And so, that’s my position.

Councilman Wooley: Can I have one more comment Mr. Chairman? I would like to say in regards to the comment how we came to grow further out, and the it taxes the city, and at the same time, those same individuals are the taxes that help fund the city. Thank you.

Councilman Lester: But at the same time Mr. Wooley, we can’t get into a zero sum game that says because I have the financial wherewithal, then I have a superior right of citizenship. I know that’s not what you’re saying.

Councilman Wooley: No, that’s not what I’m saying.

Councilman Lester: It certainly sounds that way. I’m paying the way, so I can get my way.

Councilman Walford: Gentlemen, each of you have now had two debates, unless there are other comments- - -

Councilman Webb: I just want to say one thing. I understand what Mr. Lester is saying. Truly do. I think about it across the river, our sister city. You know you take old Bossier downtown old Bossier, you know the infrastructure there I’m sure is just as in bad a shape as we have and everything’s growing towards Benton, and they just keep - - - you know that’s where the people want to go. And I just think if that’s where the people want to go, we need to let ‘em go. People don’t want to build a $200,000 house in Allendale. I mean you know - - - you just gotta - - - that’s reality. So I mean, I just think that there’s been poor planning really on a vision of a city, Councilmen, over the years where this city was headed.

Councilman Shyne: You see I jumped when you said that.

Councilman Walford: That’s cause you covered a lot of years.

Councilman Webb: Well, I know at one time the city limits ended at 70^th Street. I mean if we would’ve taken that action back then and not gone beyond 70^th Street, and said no, if you want to build now, you gotta build up north or you gotta build in Allendale or Lakeside - - -

Councilman Lester: Then we wouldn’t be spending a million dollars cutting grass.

Councilman Webb: Well, that may be true.

Councilman Lester: And Allendale wouldn’t be dead.

Councilman Webb: Then you’d have a people going to - - -

Councilman Lester: Then you’d have a city that everybody live in regardless of where they are.

Councilman Webb: I didn’t say one word when you were speaking okay?

Councilman Shyne: Point of Order Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Walford: Thank you and I will rule. You are totally out of order. Mr. Webb. You are still recognized to comment.

Councilman Webb: And I just look at you know I mean, I think we’re foolish in one sense to say we’re not going to allow the city to expand. I know when I was on the Commission; we had a lot of problems with the way that the annexation was done. I never was against annexation; I was just against the process that was happening. And I think if that’s where the growth is going to go, that’s where - - - it’s just like Mr. Wooley said. They’re the ones that are actually paying 75% of the taxes in this city. The ones that live inside the city limits because that’s where the tax base is coming from, and I just - - - I’ve said enough.

Councilman Shyne: I call for the vote Mr. Chairman. I take it back. I think Mike got his hand up.

Councilman Long: Call the question, and lets get on with it. Lets call for the vote.

Councilman Walford: Okay, we’re going to have to have two votes then. Mr. Long has called for the question.

Motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Shyne to call for the question and end debate. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 33 of 2007 approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 5. Nays: Councilman Lester. 1. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

3. Ordinance No. 38 of 2007: An ordinance amending the 2007 Community Development Special Revenue Fund Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Wooley. The Clerk read the following:

Amendment # 1 to Ordinance No. 38 of 2007

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Under 2007 Revenues:

Under Administration, decrease Transfer to General Fund by $30,000 and appropriate Transfer to Information Technology Fund at $30,000.

Under Housing and Business Development, decrease Transfer to General Fund by $71,300 and appropriate Transfer to Information Technology Fund at $71,300.

Motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Lester to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 38 of 2007. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, and Shyne. 5. Nays: Councilman Bowman. 1. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

Motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Long to adopt Ordinance No. 38 of 2007 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, and Shyne. 5. Nays: Councilman Bowman. 1. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

4. Ordinance No. 34 of 2007: ZONING - C-11-07: 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 Avocado Drive at Mayhaw Circle, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H, Urban, One-Family Residence District, to R-1H-E, Urban, One-Family Residence/Extended Use District limited to a “Leasing/Management/Community Center Building” only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Lester, seconded by Councilman Shyne to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 5. Nays: Councilman Lester. 1. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

5. Ordinance No. 35 of 2007: ZONING – C-13-07: 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 Alston Street, and Dale Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-3, Urban, Multi-Family Residence to R-3-E, Urban Multi-Family Residence/Extended Use District, Limited to “A Grocery Store” only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Lester, seconded by Councilman Shyne to adopt.

Councilman Lester: Could Mr. Marshall? Claude come on down. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Could you get the microphone for Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Claude Marshall: (1807 Clay Street)

Councilman Lester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members, I’m asking for a favorable vote. And I wanted Mr. Marshall to come down and I wanted the Council to see Mr. Marshall, and I wanted the people of Shreveport to see Mr. Marshall. Mr. Marshall and his family are lifelong residents of the Allendale community, Clay Street. Mr. Marshall is a very successful business man that has run businesses in Shreveport and in Dallas, and has run both automobile as well as restaurants. He has seen this particular building on the corner of Austin and Dale when it was an eyesore and a problem for the people of the community. It was a place where people hung out, did bad things, and made the neighborhood look bad. Mr. Marshall on his own has invested the time and the capital to purchase this store and is in the process of rehabilitating this building. And he’s going to open a grocery store in this area. The thing that is unique about it and I’m going to let him speak about it himself, he is the person that we have longed for a long time. He is a resident of Allendale whose always been in Allendale, who believes in Allendale and respects the people of Allendale enough that he wants to open a grocery store, and he is not going to open it under the guise of being a liquor store. And some people have said that that can’t be done. I don’t agree with them, and I’m going to wish Mr. Marshall and his staff and his family well, because he’s been just about successful with everything that he’s done. But I just wanted the Council to see this man and to know that there are people in Allendale who want to make some positive things happen and who have the resources to put their money where their mouths are, and do want to disrespect the community as my good friend Mr. Christian did. And say that you can’t be successful. Yeah, I called his name, that you can’t be successful in a business, because all they want over there is alcohol. Mr. Chairman, if it would be proper at this time, I’d like for Mr. Marshall to share where he’s going.

Mr. Marshall: The reason why I’m trying to open up the door, Mr. Christian was going to open up a store in the neighborhood. We don’t have a store in the neighborhood within a half mile to a mile area, and they wanted to put alcohol in the neighborhood. And I was one of those people who opposed the alcohol in the neighborhood, with the Patzman Civic Club. We opposed alcohol in our neighborhood. We’ve seen what it’s done. Where alcohol goes drugs also follow. We don’t want the crack on Dale Street anymore. I remember when you could buy it, when they used to hold signs up ‘how many’ on Dale Street. It was an eyesore. We need a store. We need somewhere people can pick up things. Some times I don’t feel like - - - I have transportation, you know I have somebody to drive me wherever I want to go, I can go. But there’s other people in my neighborhood that can’t go. They can’t afford to go. Right there at N. Dale, you have the Canaan Towers. Those people have to go miles around just to get anything. I want something that’s convenient, affordable. Not no gauging. If they go up on Pierre Ave, they pay 50 - - - you know for a 25 cent roll of toilet paper, they charge them a dollar. And that’s ridiculous. A can of Chicken Soup, two dollars. I don’t think we need alcohol, I just want to give the services that the community - - - you know I talked to the community before. We had a meeting over there. I had over 300 names on a petition. And everybody on that petition told me that they do not want alcohol in the neighborhood. And I talked to Mr. Lester. I didn’t just start, I started on this what 2-3 years ago. And I’ve invested the money myself. No loans, no banks is involved in this. It’s all out of pocket. Me and my family, we’re doing this.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marshall I just want to commend you and the neighborhood over there. And it seems like Mr. Lester was saying the other people who used to own those grocery stores used to live somewhere else Mr. Lester?

Councilman Lester: Oh yeah.

Councilman Shyne: And I’m glad to see that you live in that neighborhood, and if it’s anybody watching on T.V. that lives in that neighborhood I would encourage them to make sure that they trade with you. Because that’s how you keep quality businesses in your neighborhood. You know if you go across town and trade with somebody else, then that means that your neighborhood is going to go down and you’re not going to have those businesses. And I applaud you.

Mr. Marshall: You know we can’t - - - in Allendale it’s after 5:00, you can’t buy a pizza. No one will deliver a pizza in Allendale after 5:00. So, I’m going to have a grocery store/pizza hut. Pizza Hut might get mad with me, but I’ve already gotten the contract to put the pizza place in there.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Marshall, that’s a very wise thing to do, and I see the Chief of Police sitting back there, and so if I worked for a pizza place, I wouldn’t be caught in Allendale either selling pizza after 5:00 if I lived somewhere else. But you’re doing the right thing. You know have it there for the people in that area, because I can understand. You know I’d hate to see Bryan Wooley, or Michael Long and especially Mr. Webb over in there with a pizza hat on trying to deliver a pizza after 5:00. We might have to have a special election. So, I applaud you on doing what you’re doing.

Councilman Walford: Sir, I’m going to take a moment to just wish you well. I’m proud to see what you’re doing.

Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 35 of 2007 approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

6. Ordinance No. 36 of 2007: ZONING – C-15-07: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance by rezoning property located on a certain tract of land 600 feet west of Norris Ferry Road, and also being 1400 feet north of the Southern Loop, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-A, Residence-Agriculture District, to R-1D (PUD), Urban, One-Family Residence (Planned Unit Development) District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Wooley)

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

7. Ordinance No. 37 of 2007: ZONING – C-19-07: 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 Anna Street and Hearne Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1H, Urban, One Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (G/Bowman)

Having passed first reading on February 27, 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 Bowman, seconded by Councilman Shyne to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne and Bowman. 6. Nays: None. Mayor Pro Temp: Councilman Walford. 1.

The adopted ordinances and amendments follow:

ORDINANCE N0. 32 OF 2007

AN ORDINANCE DECLARING CERTAIN ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES TO BE SURPLUS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT TO DONATE THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT’S TAX INTEREST IN CERTAIN SURPLUS ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has a tax interest in the herein below described properties which have been adjudicated for the non-payment of City property taxes; and

WHEREAS, the herein below described properties are not needed for public purposes and should be declared surplus properties; and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has received a request to donate its tax interest in the herein below described properties as indicated below.

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

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Shreveport does hereby authorize the donation of its tax interest in the herein below described properties.

Property No. 1: Legal Description - Lot 23, Cooper Heights Subdivision, Unit 1, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 800, Page 181 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181418-019-0023-00) Municipal Address - 3006 Fisher Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $8,541.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 2: Legal Description - Lot 16, Cooper Heights Subdivision, Unit 1, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 800, Page 181 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181418-019-0016-00) Municipal Address - 3020 Fisher Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $2,000.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 3: Legal Description - Lot 14, Cooper Heights Subdivision, Unit 1, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 800, Page 181 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181418-019-0014-00) Municipal Address - 3024 Fisher Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $2,00.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 4: Legal Description - Lot 108, Cooper Heights Subdivision, Unit 4, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 800, Page 371 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181418-022-0108-00) Municipal Address - 3028 Fisher Street

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $2,000.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 5: Legal Description - Lot 15, of a re-subdivision of Lots 13 to 19, inclusive, Block Four (4), Fairfield Place Subdivision, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 450, Page 231 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon. (GEO#171423-033-0015-00) Municipal Address - 13435 None (Union St.)

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $1,200.00 DISTRICT B

Property No. 6: Legal Description - Lot 14, of a re-subdivision of Lots 13 to 19, inclusive, Block Four (4), Fairfield Place Subdivision, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 450, Page 231 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#171423-033-0014-00) Municipal Address - 5916 Union St.

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $1,200.00 DISTRICT B

Property No. 7: Legal Description - Lot 8, Flanagan Subdivision, TAL 7, Allendale, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book R, Page 607 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181436-031-0008-00) Municipal Address - 1527 Milam St.

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $2,200.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 8: Legal Description - Lot 10, Flanagan Subdivision, TAL 7, Allendale, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book R, Page 607 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181436-031-0010-00) Municipal Address - 1535 Milam St.

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $2,200.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 9: Legal Description - Lot 11, Flanagan Subdivision, TAL 7, Allendale, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book R, Page 607 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181436-031-0011-00) Municipal Address - 1541 Milam St.

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $2,200.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 10: Legal Description - Lot 12, Flanagan Subdivision, TAL 7, Allendale, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book R, Page 607 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181436-031-0012-00) Municipal Address - 1545 Milam St.

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $2,500.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 11: Legal Description - Lot 13, Flanagan Subdivision, TAL 7, Allendale, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book R, Page 607 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181436-031-0013-00) Municipal Address - 1549 Milam St.

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $2,200.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 12: Legal Description - W/2 of Lot 364, Jones Mabry Subdivision, Unit 5, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 450, Page 243 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181420-009-0381-00) Municipal Address - 21021 None

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $3,914.00 DISTRICT A

Property No. 13: Legal Description - S/2 of the E/2 of Lot 364, Jones Mabry Subdivision, Unit 5, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat thereof recorded in Book 450, Page 243 of the Conveyance Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements located thereon.

(GEO#181420-009-0389-00) Municipal Address - 21026 None

AMOUNT OFFERED: NONE APPRAISED VALUE: $2,609.00 DISTRICT A

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the Mayor of the City of Shreveport shall be authorized to do any and all things and to sign any and all documents, including an Act of Donation, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney necessary to effectuate the purposes set forth herein.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 33 OF 2007

AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT – A 10-ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF EAST KINGS HIGHWAY AND NORTH OF BAGLEY ROAD IN SECTION 34(T17N-R13W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

TAG NO. 06-02

BY: COUNCILMAN

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

WHEREAS, petitions signed by more than the required percentage in number of registered voters and in number of resident property owners and by more than the required percentage in property value of resident owners of the area described below have been filed with the City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, the following described property, to wit:

A certain 10-acre area of land located in Section 34, Township 17 North, Range 13 West, and identified as Lot 11 of the SANDY-BEND ACRES Subdivision as recorded on February 6, 1925, under Instrument Number 15854 in Book 150, Page 334, of the conveyance records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Said area further identified and made up of a 0.27-acre triangle, more or less, in the Northeast corner of said Lot 11, measuring 121 feet on the North line and 98.78 feet on the East line; and Kings Pointe Subdivision, Phase 7, as recorded in Book 4050, Page 58; and Kings Pointe Subdivision, Phase 8, as recorded in Book 4050, Page 184 of the conveyance records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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

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

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to file, within ten (10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the District Court

for Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by this ordinance.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized to record a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 34 OF 2007

BY:

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 AVOCADO DRIVE AT MAYHAW CIRCLE, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1H, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, TO R-1H-E, URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT LIMITED TO A “LEASING/MANAGEMENT/COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING” ONLY, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of Lot 90 located on the north side of Avocado Drive at Mayhaw Circle, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1H, Urban, One Family Residence District, to R-1H-E, Urban, One-Family Residence/Extended Use One Family Residence/Extended Use District, limited to“leasing/management/community center building” only,

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

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

2. Approval of the community center component is contingent upon the continuous operation of the management/leasing component at this same location.

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 35 OF 2007

BY:

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 ALSTON STREET AND DALE STREET, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-3, URBAN, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO R-3-E, URBAN, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT, LIMITED TO “A GROCERY STORE” 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 north 101 feet of Lots 49 and 50, Templeman Subdivision, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, located on the southwest corner of Alston Street and Dale Street, be and the same is hereby changed from R-3, Urban, Multi-Family Residence to R-3-E, Urban, Multi-Family Residence/Extended Use District limited to “a grocery store” only,

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

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

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

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

ORDINANCE NO. 36 OF 2007

BY:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND 600 FEET WEST OF NORRIS FERRY RAOD, AND ALSO BEING 1400 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHERN LOOP, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-A, RESIDENCE-AGRICULTURE DISTRICT, TO R-1D(PUD), URBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ) 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 a certain tract of land 600 feet west of Norris Ferry Road, and also being 1400 feet north of the Southern Loop, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described below, be and the same is hereby changed from R-A, Residence-Agriculture District, to R-1D (PUD) Urban, One-Family Residence (Planned Unit Development) District,

A certain tract of land containing 5.350 acres, M/L situated in the N/2 of the SE/4 of Section 20, T16N- R13W, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the SE corner of said Section 20 and proceed N01°05’49”E along the E line of said section a distance of 1319.25 feet to the SE corner of said N/2 of SE/4; thence proceed N88°57’13”W along the S line of said N/2 a distance of 605.87 feet to the P-O-B; thence continue N88°57’13”W a distance of 400.00 feet; thence proceed N01°03’46”E a distance of 582.63 feet; thence proceed S88°56’14”E a distance of 400.00 feet; thence proceed S01°03’46”W a distance of 582.51 feet to the P- O-B and being subject to any and all servitudes, easements, and/or R-O-W of record or of use.

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 additional 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. 37 OF 2007

BY:

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 ANNA STREET AND HEARNE AVENUE, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM R-1H, 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 Lot 59 and the W 30 feet of Lot City Park Addition, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, located on the northwest corner of Anna Street and Hearne Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1H, 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 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. 38 OF 2007

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2007 BUDGET FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

BY:

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2007 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, to adjust appropriations, reflect current revenue estimates and for other purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 166 of 2006, the 2007 budget for the Community Development Special Revenue Fund, is hereby amended as follows:

In Section 1 (Estimated Receipts):

Under "2006 and Prior-Year Funds":

Increase Prior-Year CDBG Entitlement by $974,500.

Increase Prior-Year HOME Program Income by $842,900.

Increase Prior-Year FNMA Grant by $186,000.

Under "Fiscal Year 2007 Funds":

Decrease State Emergency Shelter by $11,200.

Decrease WIA Grant by $51,700.

Appropriate National Emergency Grant at $103,800.

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Under "Prior-Year Funds":

Increase HOME Program by $842,900.

Increase Neighborhood Recovery Program by $186,000.

Increase CBDG Programs by $974,500.

Under "2007 Revenues":

In Administration, decrease Other Charges by $180,000 and appropriate Public Services at $180,000.

Decrease State ESG by $11,200.

In Workforce Development, appropriate National Emergency Grant at $103,800. Decrease WIA Grants by $51,700.

Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.

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

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

Amendment # 1 to Ordinance No. 38 of 2007

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

In Section 2 (Appropriations):

Under 2007 Revenues:

Under Administration, decrease Transfer to General Fund by $30,000 and appropriate Transfer to Information Technology Fund at $30,000.

Under Housing and Business Development, decrease Transfer to General Fund by $71,300 and appropriate Transfer to Information Technology Fund at $71,300.

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. 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)

9. Ordinance No. 13 of 2007: ZONING APPEAL – C-101-06: 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) (Remanded to MPC February 13, 2007)

10 Ordinance No. 14 of 2007: ZONING APPEAL – C-1-07: 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) (Remanded to MPC February 13, 2007)

11. 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. (Tabled February 27, 2007)

Councilman Walford: Mr. Thompson?

Mr. Thompson: As far as I know Mr. Chairman, none of these are going to be removed from the table.

NEW BUSINESS:

PROPERTY STANDARDS APPEAL

Mr. Johnny R. Green, 3117 Hollywood Ave, Shreveport, LA 71108 (F/Shyne) (3205 Hollywood Ave Lot 11, Blk A, Hollywood Sub. 2, Parcel No: 171422001001100) (F/Shyne) Decision rendered March 12, 2007

ABO APPEAL

Mr. Jeffrey L. Johnson, 1820 E. Texas Street, Apt 603, Bossier City, LA 71111 (Samstown Casino and Hotel, Clyde Fant Pkwy)(B/Walford) Decision rendered March 12, 2007

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES:

Councilman Walford: Mr. Lester, desperately, desperately need a meeting of the Property Standards Committee. I think there are issues that we definitely need to talk about.

Councilwoman Bowman: I would certainly like to remind everyone of our meeting this coming Monday at 12:00 noon. It’s a Public Safety Meeting. And I think that Sharon are you all getting the notices out? It’s a eating meeting, so hopefully we’ll have a pretty good attendance.

Councilman Walford: I understand that you’re going to have a Commissioner there?

Councilwoman Bowman: Yeah, and we’re going to invite Gif Gillen.

CLERK’S REPORT:

Mr. Thompson: None except Mr. Lester’s called an SRA meeting immediately following this meeting.

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 6:04 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 denial of application to sell alcoholic beverages at Kim’s Lunch Box, 426 North Market, Shreveport, Louisiana, 71107, has been rescheduled for March 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. (A/Lester)

*** 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 March 26, 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.