CC 3827

08 19 08

Council Proceedings of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana

August 12, 2008

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana was called to order by Chairman Joe Shyne at 3:06 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 2008, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Mr. Charlie Davis.

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Bowman.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Absent: None.

Councilman Shyne: Did I, did I hear Councilman Lester answer? What was that Councilman Lester?

Councilman Lester: Kuku. It means here in Swahili Mr. Shyne.

Councilman Shyne: Oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. That’s a part of - - -

Councilman Lester: Expanding the vocabulary.

Councilman Shyne: There you go. That’s diversity. Okay.

Motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Webb to approve the minutes of the Administrative Conference, Monday, July 21, 2008, Council Meeting, Tuesday, August 12, 2008, and Amendment No. 1 to Shreveport City Council Meeting Minutes – July 22, 2008.

Amendment No. 1 to the July 22,2008 Shreveport City Council Meeting Minutes

Amend the Council Minutes of the July 22, 2008, City Council meeting relative to the vote on Resolution No. 181 of 2008, as published in the Official Journal (The Times) July 28, 2008 on Page 11C, Column 2, as follows:

Delete:

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Shyne, and Bowman. 6. Nays: Councilman Webb. 1.

And insert:

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Walford, Long, Wooley, Shyne, and Bowman. 5. Nays: Councilman Webb. 1. Out of Chamber: Councilman Lester. 1.

________________________________________________________________________

Explanation:

Councilman Webb voted against the motion to adopt the Resolution; and Councilman Lester was out of the chamber and did not cast a vote. This amendment corrects that error.

Councilman Shyne: Would that include any corrections or comments?

Councilman Walford: Would that include Amendment No. 1 of July 22^nd?

Councilman Long: Yes it does.

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

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

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, we’re at Awards, Recognition of Distinguished Guest.

Mayor Glover: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Council. We have a couple, but I also see some other individuals here that may be guests of Council Members. So, the wonderful folks I see here from the Theatre of Performing Arts, I had the opportunity to take a break during my family’s reunion and come out and share with the great production over at Booker T. Washington High School, the Harlem Renaissance, and so since I see Ms. Gloria here on the front row, I will certainly yield my time at this point and time to make sure that these young folks are properly recognized and don’t have to wait too long Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Shyne: Well, lets say that she’s here for you and I both. I mean, this is Gloria. I invited Gloria, and I was also there, and Gloria next time, make sure you invite all of the Council Members to come out. I thought it was quite lovely and of course, I predate the Mayor probably two or three years. It’s probably two or three years difference in our ages. But you see that little smile he’s giving me like Joe, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mayor Glover: Is that decades or years?

Councilman Shyne: You see? Gloria, I told you. But I wanted Mr. Mayor, I invited Gloria to come down because - - - is the Chief here? Where is the Chief? Chief Whitehorn, would you kinda come a little bit? I want to say this so - - - and I hope Gloria, I hope John McLeod isn’t listening, so you know he might write another article and put it in The Times and say we’re talking too much again. But sometimes you have to talk. You know Chief, we’re talking about juvenile crime and what we can do in order to diffuse some of these situations that we have in our communities that create this crime and it puts an extra burden on you and it puts an extra burden on the Mayor and it puts and extra burden on the Council, and it puts an extra burden on the citizens. But the kind of program that Gloria and her people have put together is the kind of programs that we need throughout this city, where we can grab these youngsters and teach them self pride. Teach them that somebody out there who loves you. Teach them that there is a way that America has opportunities for everybody, and we are blessed to live in the greatest country on the face of God’s green earth. And if we’re going to ever stop this juvenile crime that we have, we’re going to have to have programs like we used to have. Like the program that Gloria and - - - I was trying to think of your counterpart who teaches dance. Yeah, Luther. I was at Gloria’s program and the gymnasium was just full at Booker T. And I guess she must have had maybe a hundred kids or better that was involved. These are the kinds of kids who can go back into the community and know how to diffuse hostile situations. Who know that they have a future, who know that Shreveport and America belong to them. Who can stay away from the gang banging, and can stay away from those anti-social activities and events. And Gloria, you really touched my heart, and my wife had to kinda put her hand on my head, Ms. Lester, to keep me from shedding a tear because it was really touching, because you had so many - - - you had so many youngster involved. And I saw so much talent there. And Mr. Mayor, I don’t mean no harm, but I saw a young man who reminded me a lot of you when you were growing up. I believe, it’s that him sitting right there? Stand up so the Mayor can see you. Now the Mayor was about that size when he was his age. And this young man has a tremendous amount of talent. Gloria, would you come forward and say a few words and please introduce your group, your staff, and have your whole group to stand because we’re so proud of them.

Ms. Gloria Gibson: Thank you so much. We’d like to thank all of you Mayor Cedric Glover and all the Council people here. Thank you for your support for the Arts. And we hope that you will continue not only to support the Theatre of Performing Arts, but all of the Arts programs in this city. But I would like to introduce all of the young people and their parents, will you please stand, that participated in the Harlem Renaissance. These are the young people, and like Councilman Shyne said, they’re very talented. So, we’re just so happy to have them out at the Theatre of Performing Arts “Yazzy” program. And I’d like to thank not only all of you up there, but also I’d like to thank the Caddo Parish School Board for their support. Cathy (inaudible) who is Music Supervisor for Caddo Parish School Board gives us so much help, so we would like to thank her and also we have two School Board Representatives here today. Ms. Tammy Phelps, and also Ms. Ursula Hardy who is here to support us. Please give them a nice round of applause. I would also like to thank my staff. I’m going to start here with Walter Washington, one of our Art Teachers. We had a beautiful Art exhibit that he and Edwin Allen put an art exhibit on at the school on the 25^th and 26^th of July. Ms. Julie Lester, who works with voice. She’s responsible for training these beautiful voices that we hear.

Councilman Shyne: And Gloria, who is my neighbor also.

Ms. Gibson: Our voice teacher, Mrs. Julie Lester which lives right down the street from you. Another fine musician we have in the City of Shreveport, Mr. Larry Pearson, he’s an arranger. He arranged some of the music that we need and compose some of the music, Larry Pearson. One of our costume persons who works with costumes, Ms. Alberta Banner.

Councilman Shyne: Who used to be a neighbor of mine. I don’t know whether Alberta move out there where all those big houses (inaudible).

Ms. Gibson: Costume, makeup and hair design, Ms. Candra Gray, and our choreographer I think she works with the City of Shreveport also, but she’s a great choreographer and dancer, Ms. Sherrika Fields.

Councilman Shyne: I was really surprised, because I didn’t know that Sherrika could dance, the way she be walking in here stumbling and going on.

Ms. Gibson: She’s a great dancer, a great person, beautiful family. Ms. Doris Johnson. This is our Director, Doris Johnson. She’s kind of nervous, so make her feel welcome. She’s an English teacher at Booker T. Washington High School, and she’s the director of the Summer Morning Mix, and also Yazzy. She’s a great vocalist, jazz singer, and we’ve been knowing each other since 1995. And she’s a great writer. So, I would just like for her to say a few words if you don’t mind. Thank you so much.

Ms. Johnson: Well thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I would want to say that Ms. Gibson has a wonderful program. I first met her when I was in a production called “Don’t bother me, I can’t cope.” And since that time, I think I’ve just gained a wealth of knowledge from what I experienced with that production. And I brought with me the love of children, the love of teaching, the love of writhing. And the wonderful teachers that I’ve experienced through the years from Booker T. Washington, to Southern to Centenary. And I bring this all to the table, and I hope that everyone is able to partake. And thank you.

Ms. Gibson: So, thank you very much. And I would like to say all of you - - - don’t you receive information from us? We usually send you tickets. Mr. Wooley said that we can’t do that anymore, right? So, I think it was Ethics things that - - -

Councilman Wooley: No Ma’am I didn’t say that.

Ms. Gibson: Oh, you didn’t say that. I thought you said you were returning your tickets. But anyway we usually send you two complimentary tickets to the production, and we have a wonderful workshop coming in October 30^th, 31^st and November 1^st . We’re bringing in an African dance program from the Debbie Allen studios in Los Angeles, and we’re very happy about that, and the next Yazzy program will be in April. April 17^th at the Strand Theatre. So again, thank you for your support and God bless each and every one of you. Thank you. We live in a great America right? Only in America. Thank you so much.

Councilman Shyne: Gloria, thank you again for coming down and again, I would like for your whole group to stand and take a bow before they leave. All who is here with Gloria, parents too. The future of Shreveport and the future of America and the future of this world. It’s going to take all of us to make this world, to make America, to make Louisiana, to make Shreveport what it needs to be. So, I am so proud of you all and I hope to work with you all Gloria in trying to find some way that you can get some more funding so you can get more students involved. We have business people who have businesses in our communities and they sell in our communities, and they take their money somewhere else, and we want to try to get those people to invest back into our community, since they come there and they - - - I guess I can use the word rich, they kinda get rich off our communities, and we want them to invest something back. But Chief again, it’s programs like this that’s going to help us cut down on juvenile crime. And it’s programs like this that’s going to save the young generation. Again Gloria, I take my hat off to you, and I want to give Council Members an opportunity to say thank you or hello or whatever they would like to do. Councilman Lester, I’ll start with you.

Ms. Gibson: We want to thank Councilman Lester for all his support also, and the Mayor for coming out to see the program Saturday night.

Councilman Lester: Well Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t add anything to what you have already discussed. I think the program is outstanding, I think it reflects upon the talent that we have here in the City of Shreveport, both from our young people and the adults. And the fact that we have so many talented individuals who are willing to give of themselves to help continue the process and see our young children grow. You know Arts are some of the things that in tough times, the budgetary situations are the first thing to go, and that’s a real shame because the more that you do with Arts, those things are reflected in better ACT scores, better SAT scores, and things of that nature. And I just congratulate Ms. Gibson and her whole team. They are people that are very important to me. My Aunt Julie is there. And Sherrika Fields who works with the city, but also is a dance instructor to my darling daughter. So, they do a great job, and I’ve got my church members and stuff back there, so they do an outstanding job. So, congratulations to you as well as the young people. Continue to hone your craft and your talent, and never be afraid to let those things that God put inside you to come out. That would be a shame to who you are and the talent that you have. You will be blessed and you will be blessing other people. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Long: I’d just like to congratulate you guys for what you’re doing. I think it’s wonderful. I’m somewhat of a performing musician so I understand what it takes to get up and practice and get in front of people. So, I urge you to continue to practice and enjoy your time in front of folks and always do it with a smile on your face. Thank you.

Councilman Webb: I just wanted to say congratulations also. It’s pretty obvious y’all enjoy doing what you’re doing, cause you’re growing. And that’s a good sign. Probably just keep getting bigger and bigger and I think that’s good for the community.

Councilman Shyne: I think when you said growing and growing and getting bigger and bigger, I saw him looking at that young man right there so.

Ms. Gibson: He plays football.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, does he look familiar? A few years when you looked in the mirror?

Mayor Glover: You know us big guys don’t like getting picked on.

Councilman Webb: And he knows where you live.

Mayor Glover: He knows where you live, and what kind of car you drive.

Councilman Shyne: Well, Mr. Mayor. I got a bicycle. I got a green bicycle.

Councilman Walford: I think Ron made a very good point. If you look at the smiles out there, you know that they enjoy it, and I think that’s so important, and I congratulate you all.

Councilman Wooley: I just wanted to echo something you said Mr. Chairman. It’s great to see such a healthy alternative for young people, and young adults. It really makes our community that much better. So, thank you, I appreciate all your work.

Councilwoman Bowman: Thank you. Gloria, you always do a great job, and apparently with this group, you’re doing an even better job. I appreciate the fact that you have such talented folks working with you. And it’s also good to see our School Board Members, Ursula Hardy and Tammy Phelps to grace our Chamber. Hello, and I’m sorry, I will probably not be able to make it to the reception for Dr. Dawkins, but give him my regards and I’ll see him another time.

Councilman Shyne: We’re going to get out on time.

Councilwoman Bowman: Yeah right.

Councilman Shyne: Gloria, thank you and if you all want to leave at this point, we’ll - - -

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman, before you dismiss them, I want to have a chance say a few words. I certainly enjoyed coming out on that Friday evening, and having a chance to see you all put on such an outstanding performance. You know over the years I’ve had a chance to see more than a few of th e performances that you all have put on. In fact, recent Mayoral Staffer Brady Blade was the feature performer of ’05, and I can remember the violinist Michael Ward was the feature performer several years ago. But this year was especially special, because it was historic. And one of my favorite times in history was the Harlem Renaissance. I can remember being a student at Linear Jr. High School, and Mrs. Sherman, my Humanities teacher getting me and my fellow students acquainted with Langston Hughes. And seeing young people in a similar stage in life being given the opportunity to learn about the Harlem Renaissance, and Langston and Etta James and all of the other great artists and writers and poets, during that timeframe who achieved (inaudible) not only in terms of performing on the stage, but in the written word was something that I truly enjoyed and was very glad to see young people being exposed to. Because as Councilman Lester referenced it, it is something that will enrich your life and also pay off in so many ways in the years to come. I’m also very happy to see the success that you manifest Gloria, because you all represent one of the things I did reasonably well as a legislature. The funding that these good folks receive came about as a result of the direct funding. For years, they were subject to funding from other entities, other agencies, but one of the things that I guess that you learn from listening to Billie Holiday is God bless the child that has their own. And so Mr. Chairman, while you certainly don’t have as much funding as they need at this point, they have a source of direct funding that comes directly to them that they do not have to appeal for or apply for on a year-to-year basis. It’s built in. It comes in as a direct appropriation from the State of Louisiana on an annual basis. Every person who stays in a hotel/motel room in Shreveport sends a little bit towards helping to make this particular program possible. So, I applaud you for the outstanding work that you’ve done over the years. The faces that I see here before me represent not just the performers of the future, but the leaders of the future. So you all keep up the great work that you’re doing, continue to learn, and since I celebrated a birthday on this past Saturday, I also came to know that there’s someone who happens to be a fellow Leo, I believe Antony Hollins celebrated a birthday today. And I see someone else who has a birthday here as well. What’s the name? (Inaudible) Jackson. Well happy birthday to Antony and Gerry. And congratulations again Gloria and to all of the folks who are so a part of your team. I know obviously Mrs. Lester and Ms. Banner, and the rest of them so I’m going to stop calling names there so I won’t offend anybody. So kudos and keep up the good work.

Ms. Gibson: And I’d like to say Mrs. Hardy and Tammy are doing a fantastic job in helping us to (inaudible) really appreciate that.

Councilman Shyne: Just before you leave, Tammy and Ms. Hardy, you all are elected officials. Would you all just stand. And you all are beautiful people too. Is Ms. Hardy still here? Okay, thank you all here. And Gloria, just one other thing. Gloria’s group - - - Let the Good Times Roll Festival, that was actually started by the late Hilary Huckaby, that was really his idea, and Gloria’s group was the first group that we gave the Let the Good Times Roll Festival to. And Gloria, you did an excellent job. We appreciate it, thank you and God bless you and y’all come back and see us again. Mr. Mayor, just before I turn it back over to you, I see my good friend back there, Angelo, would you just wave your hand. Angelo has been around for a few years. Angelo, I’m not going to say how long, but Angelo has been around for a few years and we’re glad to see you down, and you need to come down, and you need to come down more often hear? Alright thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, we’re going to turn this back into your hands.

Mayor Glover: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, I want to start of by asking Mr. Terrance White to please come up and join me. And representing Fire Chief Brian Crawford is Assistant to the Chief, Fred Sanders. Is he here? Alright. It’s always an humbling experience to have the opportunity to be able to recognize the efforts and the exploits of a true hero. And standing here next to me here today is without a question is a true hero. Mr. Terrance White on July 22^nd of this year, Shreveport Fire Department Engine 14 and Medic Unit 14 responded to a possible drowning in a swimming pool at Country Club Marina Apartments on Lakeshore Drive. Upon their arrival, the fire companies learned that Mr. White, a resident of the apartment complex had jumped in and retrieved an unconscious and non-breathing young man from the bottom of the swimming pool. After having retrieved the young man from the pool, and getting him to the pool side, he initiated CPR and resuscitated him. Shreveport Fire Department records indicate that 14 year old juvenile was breathing and talking as he was transported to a local hospital. Because of Mr. White’s knowledge of CPR, his quick response and his care and concern for others, he saved a life. While I know it may take a little time and cost a few dollars, I believe that it is important that we stop and pause to recognize our fellow Shreveporters who display the type of courage and bravery and selflessness, like that which was displayed by Mr. White. So Mr. White, I’m honored to be here today, joined by these fine individuals, Deputy Chief Tom Self, and Assistant to the Fire Chief, Fred Sanders as we present to you first and foremost from the Mayor’s office, this Mayor’s Award of Excellence, presented to you in recognition of your heroism. Now to go along with that, we’re also going to make you a Deputy Mayor. I’m proud to present to you this lapel pin to indicate your status as such. We ask you to make some comments to this Council and the rest of the City of Shreveport, we also have a recognition to be presented to you by these persons from the Fire Department.

Chief Sanders: On behalf of Fire Chief Brian Crawford and Deputy Chief Tom Self, Chief Crawford and the Shreveport is presenting this Certificate of Accommodation, presented to Mr. Terrance White for your heroic effort in saving a possible drowning patient in a swimming pool at Country Club Mariner Apartments on July 22, 2008.

Chief Self: Mr. White, we also have a coin that the Shreveport Fire Department 911 Medallion that we give to firefighters when we do a job well done, and we would like to share this with you for a job well done.

Mr. White: Thank you sir. It ain’t too much to say. You know? Just act and react. I saw a life in need of help. I feel like that’s my job. I served in the Army and I feel like that’s my job.

Councilman Shyne: Terrance, before you go to your seat, we don’t have any medals, we don’t have any certificates, we don’t have any concrete thing to give you, but as a Shreveport City Council, we want to let you know that we are extremely proud of you and you represent the kind of citizens that we hope that could just fill this city with. So we want God to always, always bless you and yours. Thank you very much.

Mayor Glover: Chairman Shyne and Members of the Council, it is my great honor to give you a report today on the progress of an initiative that could not have happened without the support, well not just the support, but the enthusiastic support of this City Council. I’m going to ask that Dan and the rest of the technical staff to go ahead and get me queued up. Do I need to hit the first button, or are we ready to go?

Councilman Walford: Mr. Mayor, you did so good so far, you got the Chairman out of the picture.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, that’s not funny now. Now we do hear some funny things, but that’s not funny, hear?

Mayor Glover: That’s hilarious.

Councilman Lester: Tough room Mr. Chairman.

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Council, as you all will recall, at the beginning of this administration, we took the opportunity to go out and conduct a series of Town Hall meetings around the City of Shreveport to hear first and foremost from the citizens of this city, about their concerns, what their problems, what they felt represented the greatest challenges to them where they lived in their neighborhoods. And we heard from them quite a few things. And I want to thank each of you for joining me in that effort. We managed to be able to get to all seven Council Districts in the first 100 days of this administration. And by April of ’07, together we convened a Property Standards Summit where we sat down and collectively talked about and tossed around various problems and challenges that we faced in the city. And out of that, we came up with an effort that has an interesting name. I figured it would solicit some chuckles and some laughs, which I certainly I welcome. But certainly did state exactly what it is that I believe that this administration and this council has been about since we have had the privilege of serving the citizens of the City of Shreveport. And that is taking the effort on a daily basis to take back our neighborhoods. Because while we all may come to downtown, we may all go out to the Riverfront, or to travel to other places around the region, we all go home at night to the various places that we call home. And the quality of those individual places probably represent mostly directly our impressions of what we think of this place we call Shreveport. And so we, with our support, began an effort to go about trying to make Shreveport a better place. We heard those concerns from our citizens. And they mentioned things about shots being fired, and loud music, and littering, and abandoned vehicles, and vacant properties, and loitering. And the fact that the curfew was being violated and truancy laws were not being effectively enforced. We listened, and in response to that, we rolled out an aggressive effort that’s made use of the broken windows theory of policing that you all have heard me reference so often, and we combined our Community Liaison Officers increased their numbers from under a half dozen to one for each and every police district. We’ve paired them up with an equal number of Property Standards Inspectors, and the official date was June 22, 2007, but we calculate the official starting date as July 1, 2007. We began conducting on during that time period, the first of our neighborhood sweeps. And began to focus on the inoperable vehicles, the trashed lots, and the poor standing structures, and all sorts of things. Began to go about rolling out Operation T. B. O. N. E., and as you see all across these 12 districts, we now have paired Community Liaison Officers working in conjunction with Property Standards Inspectors, all of whom have a city paid for cell phone to make them accessible to the citizens of those districts 24 hours a day. With a focus on not just the major crimes, but also on the quality of life issues and the nuisance crimes that plague people’s quality of life on a daily basis. One of the other efforts that was a part of Operation T.B.O.N.E. is Operation Closed Market where Chief Whitehorn took the unprecedented move of saying that we were going to clear out the offices within the Shreveport Police Department and put police on the street and put together teams made up of administrative personnel so that they could go out and respond to specific issues and specific problems and specific challenges. This also was done in conjunction with a project that you all helped to fund as well. Civilianization of the Shreveport Police Department where we’ve identified I believe a dozen and a half of positions that were previously filled by Shreveport Police Officers and have now begun to fill those particular positions with civilians so that we could free up that police personnel to be able to go back out onto the streets and provide us with the type of support that we need to carry out the crime fighting initiatives of the City of Shreveport. One of the other efforts of Operation T.B.O.N.E. has been “Don’t shoot, I want to grow up”, which seeks to place a price on those felons out there who are in possession of handguns illegally, recognizing that guns and the ready access to guns by individuals who either have, use them illegally, or are prone to represent one of the biggest causes of the kind of crime that we see when we open up our newspapers or turn on our televisions. So we sought to incentivize our citizens by offering them cash rewards for information that leads to the arrest of individuals who are not allowed to legally posses handguns, or assault rifles. And we used the Crime Stoppers program to allow them to remain anonymous, and we’ve had more than a few individuals who have steppe forward to help us with that. One of the other problems that we knew that we faced as a city, as they young people refer to, and it happens to be in Council Member Bowman’s district, and she and I spent quite a few hours out there, they refer to it as Crenshaw and Slauson, but it’s the intersection of Greenwood and Jewella, and you can extend that to areas along Hearne Ave like the Raceway gas station and over into other areas like Councilman Shyne’s district. Around Chris Hayes Park, around Illinois Street Apartments and Broadway and Hollywood, where we’ve had cruising and individuals try to take over the parking lots of businesses that have shut down. But through the leadership of Chief Whitehorn and the men and women of Shreveport Police Department, they came up specifically. I think the idea of now Assistant Chief Wayne Smith, with the SIGN program (stop intrusions and gatherings now), where we work in conjunction with business owners who give us a signed affidavit that says you do not have to wait for a complaint to come from me as a business person if you find individuals on my premises during non business hours. Gives us the power to be able to proactive go off and not just move those folks around, but to take specific action against them if we find violations of the law. And so we have seen a great reduction in the type of Crenshaw and Slauson activity that was a big part of Shreveport over the years, due to the efforts of the SIGN program and the support of the business owners. Free Beer initiative that was started here in downtown Shreveport was an effort of the Downtown Development Authority in conjunction with the City of Shreveport Police Department who put out information to make citizens aware of the vulnerability that they create when they fail to properly secure their belongings in their vehicles, which resulted in a 75% reduction in car break ins in the downtown area, and is about to be rolled out over the rest of the City of Shreveport in short order. That along with a video surveillance program that is now being rolled out through parts of the Downtown Shreveport that represents just one of the initial steps towards our efforts to reclaim, and rebrand and repackage our downtown area. It’s manned by kiosk or a police officer in a kiosk down in the Red River District with the ability to be able to pass along information to law enforcement folks so that they can act on it very quickly. Now what results have we achieved as a result of this. As you can see here from a Property Standards perspective, from July of ’06 to Jun of ’07, the calendar year preceding the start of T.B.O.N.E., the City of Shreveport engaged in 218 demolitions. The T.B.O.N.E. year from July of ’07 to June 30^th of ’08, that number was 285, a 31% increase. Asbestos removals went from 31 to 61, Care of Premises violations went from 56 to 458, a 718% increase, and inoperable vehicles tows went from 132 to 448, up over 239%. Weed abatement on private property, and this is one of the critical areas right here for us to take note of, weed abatement on private property, the year prior to Operation T.B.O.N.E, we went and cut grass on other people’s property 6,266 times, but because of the aggressive efforts and actions of the property standards inspectors and the community liaison officers that number was cut down to 826. Diminished by 87%, while at the same time weed abatement on the adjudicated property, property that the City of Shreveport does in fact have responsibility for, and that serves as great source of complaints and all of you all get in your respective capacities as Council Members, and that we get in the Mayor’s officer, we increased that number from over 1500 to over 11,000 almost 12,000, or a 684% increase in the year of T.B.O.N.E. Citations on the court docket for property standards violations, the year prior to Operation T.B.O.N.E., there were only 25. At this point, the first year of T.B.O.N.E., we have now 60, for 140% increase, a difference that I have to give Jim Holt and the men and women of Property Standards Division as well as the citizens that helped by calling in those complaints and you all as Council Members who felt to provide the support necessary for helping us to be able to make a difference of that significance. As you can see here by this chart, property standards cases prior to T.B.O.N.E., just around 2,000 the year before. The year after T.B.O.N.E., you can see that number is approaching 9,000. Focus on crime. The year prior to T.B.O.N.E., the City of Shreveport recorded 2,238 violent crimes. The first year of T.B.O.N.E., that number 2,024. A 10% reduction. The first reduction in violent crime in the City of Shreveport in almost a decade. Total property crime, the year before T.B.O.N.E, 12,732. The first year of T.B.O.N.E., that number is 11,547. A 9% decrease. Total (inaudible) crime in terms of both property and violent crimes, 14,970 compared to 13, 571 for a 9% decrease. Lets break down that violent crime by categories. In they year prior to the startup of Operation T.B.O.N.E., the City of Shreveport recorded 42 homicides. The first year of T.B.O.N.E., that number 29. 31% reduction. Rapes, the year prior to T.B.O.N.E., 124. The first year of T.B.O.N.E., 112, a 10% reduction. Personal robberies, the year prior to T.B.O.N.E., 446. The first year of T.B.O.N.E., 411, an 8% reduction. Business robberies, the year prior to T.B.O.N.E., 122, the first year of T.B.O.N.E, 104, a 15% reduction. Aggravated Batteries, the year prior to T.B.O.N.E., 734, the first year of T.B.O.N.E., 692 for 6% reduction. Aggravated assaults, the year prior to T.B.O.N.E. 770. The first year of T.B.O.N.E, 676 for a 12% reduction. You see that same information illustrated for you there graphically. Property crimes broken down by categories as well. Residential burglaries, the year prior to T.B.O.N.E., 2,209. The year of T.B.O.N.E., 2,100 for a 5% reduction. Business burglaries, the year prior to T.B.O.N.E., 808. The first year of T.B.O.N.E, 593 for a 27% reduction. Purse snatchings, the year prior to T.B.O.N.E., 46. The first year of T.B.O.N.E., 37 for a 20% reduction. It was not a perfect year, shoplifters, the year prior to T.B.O.N.E., 1, 796. The first year of T.B.O.N.E., 2,019 for a 12% increase. Business thefts, went up from 768 to 819 for a 7% increase. Residential thefts decreased however from 1,798 to 1,660 for an 8% reduction. Auto accessory thefts went up by 7% from 406 to 433 for a 7% increase. Thefts from autos however, went down 23%, from 2,322 to 1,781. General theft went down by 7% from 1,291 to 1,177 and auto thefts decreased by 28% from 1,288 in the year prior to T.B.O.N.E to 928 in the year during T.B.O.N.E. Want to thank the citizens of Shreveport for this successful year. For it not for the willingness, and we talked about this quite a bit, in fact I talked about it quite a bit, the fact that we have in some segments of our city a conspiracy of silence. Folks who choose not to work with and cooperate with law enforcement. But the vast majority of the people of this city help Shreveport, helps Chief Whitehorn, helps the officers out on the street by providing them with the information that they need to be able to go out and either apprehend the bad guys once they’ve done something bad, or as we have seen in this year have worked with us to get us access to the information that we need to try and stop problems before they develop. So, I want to thank them. They’ve also worked to support property standards initiatives. They’ve stepped out and cleaned up situations around their own homes, but also called on their neighbors to step up and meet a higher standard as well. So, first and foremost I want to thank the citizens of Shreveport. I want to thank the members of this City Council. You all stepped forward, answered the call, allocated the resources, supported the effort, bought into the vision. Together we’ve helped to make a difference. I want to thank Jim Holt and all of the men and women of the Property Standards Bureau for the work that they’ve put in, the effort, the round the clock access that they submitted themselves to, is something that I give great, great appreciation and express appreciation for. Also know as we look at our brochures that we hand out for Property Standards Bureau, I see names written and some scratched out. I think we may have a pretty high turnover, because this is a pretty demanding job right now. But we thank them for the effort and sacrifice of those folks who have stuck it out and (inaudible). And without question, I want to thank Chief Henry L. Whitehorn and all the members of the Shreveport Police Department for the Herculean effort that they have put forward to help bring about success that the first year that Operation T.B.O.N.E. has helped to achieve. We also had some other partners outside of city government. Caddo Animal Control has worked with us as our Property Standards folks and Police folks have helped to identify vicious dogs and stray animals who have represented a nuisance in neighborhoods. So they have been there when we called. We appreciate their help and their support. We also want to express appreciation to the members of our City Court, who accepted our challenge, and while we don’t yet have a perfect and completely clear understanding, they have certainly stepped up to the plate and helped us to send a message that this is a different day when it comes to nuisance violations and property standards issues, and so we appreciate them for being a part of the T.B.O.N.E. team. We’ll leave it there as I’m proud to announce to you, but you can leave that slide up if you don’t mind, as I’m proud to announce to you, that as a result of the findings of the Louisiana Municipal Association Conference that just completed itself this past weekend, the City of Shreveport won top prize for Operation T.B.O.N.E. being recognized as the first place winner in the Basic Services Division as judged by the folks down in Baton Rouge, for cities that are attempting to improve the quality of basic service that’s being rendered to the citizens of the City of Shreveport. Now, that’s about what we’ve done. Let’s talk a little bit about the future. While we’ve built some success, there is still more yet to be done. The one thing I also want to share with you before we go on is that the one thing that we’re not going to be able to do, and should not create the expectation of doing so, we’re not going to create a zero crime rate for the City of Shreveport. That does not exist anywhere. And so, as long as there is something be it an automotive burglary, or assault, unfortunately a homicide, there’s going to be news that ends up leading our nightly news broadcast, or being the front page story in our newspaper. But the one thing that we hoped to be able to do is to stretch out the lapses of time, during which those particular stories end up being the lead story in our local news broadcast or front page news on our newspaper. Now what does that mean? If we want to be able to improve the situation even more so, Chief Whitehorn has done a staffing study for the Shreveport Police Department that indicates several things, that you and I as the elected officials here need to accept as one of our challenges. No. 1, we need more people. We’re currently funded for 541. I think as of today, we have 502 who are working. So between firings and resignations, and transferals, and what have you., we are about 39 officers down. But we need to increase that funded number from 541 to at least 641. We need at least 100 additional police officers for the City of Shreveport in order to be able to carry on the great work that has been started. And to more effectively do the job that is being done. Because much of what you have seen here depicted statistically has been achieved by overwhelming sacrifice of the 0502 officers who are here today still working for the City of Shreveport. Those individuals have embraced as accepted the idea of working overtime assignments. They have embraced and accepted the idea of normally having worked in administrative or executive positions, now realizing that in order to be able to increase our presence, that they will have to go out and spend time supporting the efforts of the patrolmen on the streets of the City of Shreveport. And so we need to be in a position to be able to more effectively do our job, by having the numbers of personnel that we need to be able to assign to the various areas and districts that we have in the Shreveport Police Department. That’s one of the other things that we did not depict within this presentation. But one of the other things was the movement to the area concept, the putting out in November of last year of the four area captains for the City of Shreveport and making those area captains responsible for their particular geographic regions 24 hours a day was a big part of it. So we want, need more police officers. And then secondly, we need to responsibly increase police pay. We need to responsibly increase police pay. We don’t need to do it just so we take another little step. We need to do it so we end up making Shreveport, the law enforcement agency of choice here in Northwest Louisiana. Now what does that mean. An individual wants to go into law enforcement in this area, if he has a college degree can go to Bossier Parish, and become a Bossier Parish Deputy and earn $40,000 a year. An individual who doesn’t have a college degree, he starts off at $35,000. $33,000, where we are right now, and that represents the average of what every other department pretty much pays within this area. We know the challenge as well as the opportunity of being a Shreveport Police Officer is one that’s greater. We’re the largest city in the region. We have law enforcement challenges that aren’t common in some of the other communities across this area. So, as we go this year into this budget process, I’m going to challenge each of you to work with this administration as we figure out how we chart the course of to both increase our numbers, as well as increase our pay so that this first year of T.B.O.N.E won’t be an anomaly, but will become the norm for how we go about doing our business here in Shreveport. We can build on this success and hopefully see even greater and greater and larger and larger reductions in the months and years to come for the citizens of the City of Shreveport. Glad to have the opportunity to be here today and make this presentation on behalf of Chief Whitehorn, Jim Holt and all the men and women of the Shreveport Police Department as well as the Property Standards Division. I can’t leave out Mike Strong and all of his folks in Operational Services, who helped to support these efforts as well. Who answered the call to go out and clean the interstates. Despite the fact that Louisiana up until this year, every other major city in Louisiana has highway sweeping paid for the State of Louisiana, our folks have gone out and answered that call and answered that challenge to help make Shreveport a better and cleaner place. So, I look forward Council Members to working with you all, continued success with T.B.O.N.E., appreciate your support, appreciate your guidance, appreciate the encouragement that you provide to the men and women of this city as they go about doing the work that they do everyday. And again, we look forward to working with you as we go on to make T.B.O.N.E. even more successful in the years to come. Before I take my seat, I want to stop and thank and acknowledge the help and support and the assistance of Gwen Campbell in the Mayor’s office as well as one of our Mayoral Interns, who is a student at Centenary who has stayed on assisting the Mayor’s office until the start of this coming fall semester, Ms. Brandi Andrews who was instrumental along with Bernard Riley in the Chief’s office for helping to pull together the Power Point presentation that you all saw today. So thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Members of the Council.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Chairman before you sit down, could I ask the Council Members if they have any questions or comments that they would like to direct to the Mayor?

Councilman Webb: Well, I just wanted to say, I think T.B.O.N.E also has been a big success, and I think if we keep improving everything as we go. I enjoyed the neighborhood walk-throughs that we had earlier this year. I think that was real successful, and I’d like to see us continue doing those periodically. I think we got a lot of input from the neighbors, and I think that was good, and I think that we realize that we’re serious about making this a better place to live, and I’d like to see us keep doing that.

Mayor Glover: Thank you Council Member Webb. You all have some outstanding Community Liaison Officers throughout your various areas. I know that the walk that you and I took, I believe with Cpl Ellis, outstanding officers who are helping to make those kinds of connections that are putting us in a position to be able to help make a difference. So I thank you again. An example of the support I appreciate.

Councilman Lester: Just wanted to say the record speaks for itself. The facts and figures speak for themselves, and certainly from where I sit, I know for a fact that the team that we have in my area, both from Property Standard standpoint as well as the guys that are out ther eon the street are doing an outstanding job. I can attest to the fact that we have had serious diminution in crime and it is directly attributable to Code Enforcement working with CLOs working with the Police Department, and even more than that Mr. Mayor and Council Members, citizens believe in that if they call in, something is going to happen and something is going to happen soon. And I think that the thing that makes all the difference in the world is when the citizens see things happening, because no matter how many police officers you put on the street, whether it be 600 or 6,000, you can’t put enough, you can’t put a police on every corner. At some point, the citizens have to have a buy-in and say you’ know what I’m going to help them do what needs to be done, and if I see something, I’m going to report it. And I think it’s just been genius what the Chief has done in terms of going to the area concept and giving those CLO officers cell phones has created a situation where constituents take ownership of that police officer. This is my CLO. This is my Police Officer, he comes to our meetings and they have that dialogue. And I’ve been in any number of situations where we’ve been talking either Dunn or Deidra Williams, and citizens are calling while we’re talking and looking around the area, listen, you might want to take a look at this situation, and has given information that has led to arrests of people that are doing bad things in the neighborhood. And I think that’s what the biggest thing that has been seen. Obviously the department is doing well, but when you have that community buy-in and people are calling and reporting and they’re seeing things happen, I think that is a real key to what’s going on. Because we’ve always had a good police department. We’ve always had good leadership and we’ve always had great men working hard everyday. But when you have them working together with the community, now you have something going on, and I think that’s what the greatest part of what T.B.O.N.E. is accomplishing and we definitely want to support you in that effort to make sure that effort continues.

Councilman Walford: You saw at the kickoff at National Night Out, the impact that it’s had in Highland, not only what we see, but I think you saw in the attitude of all those people attending, and I certainly did recognize CPL Amy Bowman, because she has certainly done yeoman’s work. Just like Councilman Lester was saying, they know that she’s going to be at those neighborhood meetings, and she’s going to react when they call. But I left there and went to Paradise Baptist Church, and there was CPL Sammy Brown with one of the largest groups, the other Night Out groups in my district. And they feel the same way in that neighborhood, because they know that if they get in touch with him he’s going to respond. And I think this has given a different, and this is certainly not a slight to the Police Department, but a different perspective from when they call a dispatcher and hope some officer comes out to address their problem to where the officer that comes out knows the neighborhood, 9 times out of 10, knows the problem because there’s been a problem before, and knows how to react to it and knows how to get the attention of those who are causing the problem. And I think localizing it, and bringing it down to officers and Code Enforcement Officers that are familiar has made a tremendous difference. In that area of Highland that you were in was one that really has shown a difference. Not perfect, but certainly making a beautiful comeback and is a desirable place to live. So the concept is great. It’s working and the numbers support it, but what you see on the ground supports it even more than the statistics. So I appreciate it.

Councilman Wooley: I just wanted to say thank you to all the departments for their participation and truly their efforts definitely done well for our city, especially the CLO officers. Really my hat’s off to those guys, because they really respond quickly. I know I’ve made calls to the different officers that represent my area, and they’ve done a very good job and the citizens are very excited.

Councilman Shyne: Okay Mr. Mayor, I think T.B.O.N.E. probably is one of the better programs this year, that when you look around people might not believe it but when I was on the Council back almost said in the olden days, but I’ll just say a few years ago.

Councilman Walford: It’s okay, go ahead and be descriptive.

Councilman Shyne: So, I’ll just say a few years ago, and you know that we have faced these problems a long time, and I guess I’ll say the Cooper Road area, for Cooper Road folks like you and me couldn’t get away from your roots. And Mooretown and Hollywood, we had these problems, and you and I talked about this before you were elected. I will say, I didn’t enjoy the walk through that you and I did because my feet were still tired from walking the streets trying to get you elected, so I don’t know whether you picked a bad day and it came early or something, but I would have preferred a drive-thru. You could have been in front of your truck and I could have been in a chair in the back pointing out different things. But I hope the next time we have a walk through, my feet will be better. But I do applaud and I applaud the reorganization that you brought about, and of course, you know Mike Strong has always done an excellent job. Although I don’t like him sometimes, I don’t know why I don’t like him sometimes, but Jim Holt has done a tremendous job. Anytime we fall on Jim, he’s there, and he understands it, the problems and the situations. He knows that we want it taken care of and he’s done an excellent job. So you’ve really done an excellent job of putting resources and problems that need to be solved. So, again I take my hat off to you. And we’ve just got to continue T.B.O.N.E., and like I say, I’m probably - - - Ron doesn’t understand what I’m saying, but I’m at the age now where won’t nobody hire me Ron, because I’m too old. You know I spend all of my time out in the district, and I can see a lot of improvements. So, lets just keep it going like we’re doing. Mr. Mayor, again, thank you very much.

Mayor Glover: Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Members of the Council. I want to also add that I express my appreciation and thanks to the 150 + areas across the city of Shreveport who a week ago today participated in the National Night Out program. It was wonderful for the kickoff there at Pinehurst in the Highland area, and then to go to other parts of the city. I received numerous invitations as I know you all do as well, and out of 150, I think we managed to get to about 9 of them. That was about three per hour, which means we were moving a little quicker than we should have, and probably eating a little faster than we should have. But they were all wonderful and we appreciate them. The one thing I will pass along to you that I hope we will have some communication with you all about here in the next several months. I had a chance to come across from several different sources that the good folks over in Texas decided a few years ago to push their National Night Out against crime to October. So while we were blessed with some cool weather last Tuesday, had it been the week before I’m not quite sure how things would have worked out. I left out Tuesday with two extra shirts and an extra tie with the expectation that I might go through at least one or two during the course of the evening, but fortunately that cool snap that we got didn’t necessitate that. But we could have easily found ourselves in conditions like last year and the year before where the heat was just overwhelming. And so we want to talk with you all going into next year about the possibility of pushing Shreveport’s observation of National Night Out a little bit further into the fall. Maybe a Tuesday night opposite Council, maybe in October or somewhere in that timeframe where you don’t have to worry about football conflict or Council Meeting or what have you, but would be a great chance to have a little cooler weather. The day might be a little shorter in terms of the sunlight, but still a great opportunity to be able to come out and enjoy ourselves a little bit more than we would have. So we may go from 150 to 200 observations. So, I hope you all will support us on that as we look to try and come up, but we certainly welcome any suggestions and ideas that you have. The state of Texas actually does it on the second Tuesday in October which would probably conflict with our Council schedule, but who knows, it might motivate us to have a shorter meeting on that second Tuesday. So, I’m not sure, but we look to have some dialogue with you all in the coming months about that as we plan next years activities.

Councilman Shyne: That sounds good to me Mr. Mayor, I’ve been trying to cut down on my laundry bill a little bit too. Any Council Members have any distinguished guests?

Councilman Long: I wanted to recognize my friend Charlie Davis back there who gave us that excellent invocation today.

Councilman Shyne: Charlie, you’re just getting all kind of recognition.

Councilman Walford: Mr. Chairman, I’ll use this opportunity if I may to make a presentation, if the Council will indulge me. Very briefly, I attended a fundraiser for the Philadelphia Center two weeks ago at the Municipal Auditorium. And they had a silent auction. And for some reason, something jumped up and grabbed me, that I just couldn’t do without. And Chris Miciotto was trying very hard to make sure I did without it, but I finally won the bid on it, and I wasn’t buying it for myself. It just looked like something that belonged in the Council Office. The public that hasn’t been in our office, we have some beautiful photos of old Shreveport, but we have some big blank spaces on the wall. So, Mr. Chairman if you and Mr. Thompson would stand and join me here for a second, I just couldn’t resist this, and I would like to donate it to the Council Office. It’s a photo of the Neon Bridge, that I think would look so beautiful in our office.

Councilman Shyne: And Mr. Mayor, before you leave, I think this is one of the things that you voted for.

Mayor Glover: Absolutely.

Councilman Shyne: That’s right.

Mayor Glover: (Inaudible) of the Neon Bridge.

Councilman Walford: I also have to thank Sharon, because this was three inches too long to go in my truck in the rain this morning. And she took me back over with her Suburban so we could get it here.

Councilman Shyne: Beautiful Sharon. (Inaudible) took care of your gas?

Councilman Walford: I had to bribe her with lunch, but you know it’s going to come at a later date. Monjuni’s I think it is. But anyway I would like to see that on the Council wall, and I would like to donate it to the Council. Now the only thing, we have to send Arthur to find out how we can afford to frame it, because it really needs to be framed.

Councilman Shyne: Art, I think if you - - - is Shelly here?

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, we’ll probably get a donation from the Chairman.

Councilman Walford: I think that would be very appropriate.

Councilman Shyne: Oh my God! Mike you want to serve as Chairman since you got all the money?

Councilman Long: Oh yeah!

Councilman Walford: Thank you very much for indulging me on that.

Councilman Shyne: Art, that was not nice. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Councilwoman Bowman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite all out tomorrow night to Praise Temple Full Gospel Church for their Annual Back to School Prayer Vigil. It is really a great event, and if you’re not too busy, it starts at 6:00. Thank you.

Councilman Shyne: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Jim, would you please come forward?

Reports: Property Standards Report

Councilman Shyne: Anybody have any questions or comments for Property Standards?

Councilwoman Bowman: I would like to thank him for what you did for my citizen on Marston and Pro. Thank you.

Councilman Shyne: Jim, you have anything?

Mr. Holt: No.

Councilman Shyne: We love you, and we look for you next time.

Public Hearing: None

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

Confirmations and/or Appointments:

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Dark, I believe we have some people to be confirmed if you all are ready today?

Mr. Dark: Yes we are.

Sam’s Town Casino Advisory Council: Reginald Abrams (re-appointment)

Markey Pierre

Karen Barnes (City Fair Share & recordkeeper)

Councilwoman Bowman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on and move on the recommendations. I had the opportunity to speak with Markey Pierre this morning, and I think everything is going to be okay.

Councilman Shyne: Can we do all three together? Is that fine with the Council?

Motion by Councilman Bowman, seconded by Councilman Webb to confirm the executive appointments of Reginald Abrams, Markey Pierre, Karen Barnes, Monica Hall. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Eldorado Casino Advisory Council: Monica Hall

Karen Barnes (City Fair Share & recordkeeper)

Councilwoman Bowman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on and move on the recommendations. I had the opportunity to speak with Markey Pierre this morning, and I think everything is going to be okay.

Councilman Shyne: Can we do all three together? Is that fine with the Council?

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Long to confirm the executive appointments of Reginald Abrams, Markey Pierre, Karen Barnes, Monica Hall. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Adding Legislation to the Agenda

The Clerk read the following:

1 Resolution No. 206 of 2008: Resolution declaring the intention of the City of Shreveport (the “City”) to proceed with the issuing of not to exceed Ten Million and No/100 ($10,000,000) Dollars Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds (Shreveport Airport System Project) Series 2008a-amt subject and not to exceed Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($18,500,000) Dollars Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds (Shreveport Airport System PFC Project) Series 2008B-AMT subject for the purpose of refunding certain existing indebtedness of the Airport System, funding a Debt Service Reserve Fund, if necessary, funding fees, if any, related to the termination of an existing Swap Agreement associated with prior bonds if determined to be appropriate and feasable, paying the costs of issuance of the bonds, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 207 of 2008: A resolution declaring the intention of the City of Shreveport (the “City”) to hire professionals in connection with the issuing of not to exceed Ten Million and No/100 ($10,000,000) Dollars Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds (Shreveport Airport System Project) Series 2008A-AMT subject and not to exceed Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($18,500,000) Dollars Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds (Shreveport Airport System PFC Project) Series 2008B-AMT subject for the purpose of refunding certain existing indebtedness of the Airport System, funding a Debt Service Reserve Fund, if necessary, funding fees, if any, related to the termination of an existing Swap Agreement associated with prior bonds if determined to be appropriate and feasable, paying the costs of issuance of the bonds, and otherwise providing with respect thereto

3. Resolution No. 208 of 2008: A resolution authorizing an amendment to resolution Number 100 of 2006 and Resolution Number 158 of 2007 relative to 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.

4. Ordinance No. 98 of 2008: An ordinance making certain findings with respect to the issuance of the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds on behalf of the City of Shreveport of not to exceed Ten Million and No/100 Dollars ($10,000,000) (Shreveport Airport System Project) Series 2008A-AMT subject and not to exceed Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars. ($18,500,000) (Shreveport Airport System PFC Project) Series 2008B-AMT subject to refund certain existing indebtedness of the airport system, funding a debt service reserve fund, if necessary, funding fees, if any, related to the termination of an existing swap agreement associated with prior bonds if determined to be appropriate and feasable, paying the costs of issuance of the bonds, approving the forms of and authorizing the distribution, execution and delivery of the preliminary, if any and final official statements; approving the form of the trust indenture, authorizing the execution and delivery of the loan agreement, a bond purchase agreement and other documents, certificates or contracts required in connection therewith; and authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk of the City to do all things necessary to effectuate this ordinance

5. Ordinance No. 99 of 2008: An Ordinance Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to dispose of surplus real property and otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to add Resolution No(s). 206, 207, and 208 of 2008, and Ordinance No(s). 98 and 99 of 2008 to the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Public Comments (Agenda Items to be Adopted)

Mr. Tim Goeders: (152 Ardmore) Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I’m appearing before you today to appeal for the Council to consider delaying the vote on authorizing the leasing of the city-owned properties to the Mineral Board for oil and gas leases. I wanted to inform you, some of you may already be aware that there are many neighborhoods within the city that are in the process of organizing themselves as private landowners including business and some churches that are coordinating with these people to have a mass leasing take place. And it occurs to me that as I’ve sat in some of these meetings that have taken place, that if there was a coordination of the leasing processes at the same timeframe with the public owned properties within those neighborhoods, particularly but also across the city, that it might be at the benefit for the city itself to have increased competition and or higher bonus payments or lease royalty payments in the future. And as I’ve sat in with some of these groups, there are some private groups that are coordinating and representing neighborhood associations or groups of landowners as well as the neighborhood associations themselves that are organizing the people within their own respective neighborhoods. So, my consideration is that if we were to take that consideration into account and delay it for one month and allow these neighborhoods to come before you and participate in a joint leasing process that it might be beneficial to the landowners from a basis of strategy and negotiating strength, ultimately also for the city itself in securing higher payments and/or royalty percentage in their agreements on their leasing. So, with that, that’s really all I wanted to say.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, you or Mr. Dark, I wanted to see if you all wanted to make a comment to Tim?

Mr. Dark: One of the things that we have tried to do Mr. Chairman and Mr. Goeders, is most of what we are asking you to approve leasing today is actually not in the areas where most of the organization work is being done. What we have told the neighborhood folks and say again on the record today is that we are trying to hold back on most of the street right of ways and property that we own in the areas that are organizing, so that we can in fact coordinate our efforts with them. We still have about 5,000 acres of public street right of ways, and some small parcels of land, that we are not including in our leasing right now. Most of those are in areas either will organize fairly soon, or will organize over the next few years. So our intention is that the 20 or 30 acres of streets that we may own in a section particularly in the areas where for instance Shreve Center is working and where the coalitions out south and west are working, those things we can do about the same time so that they are so that we can in fact work together. So that’s what we’re trying to do, we would urge you to go ahead and approve these now, because we really are trying to work with the neighborhoods generally to coordinate when they’re ready, we’ll be trying to move forward again. Thank you.

Mr. Goeders: Could I make another comment in regards to that please? In regards to that, it is true that there are some properties that aren’t being offered for lease in this current round, but there are those others that particularly in the area, I’m not here as a representative of the Shreve Center Coalition, although I have sat in on some of their meetings. And I am a member of the Broadmoor Neighborhood Association, and some of those properties that are being offered for lease in this round that’s proposed to go through the Mineral Board in October do involve large tracts of properties within the Broadmoor Neighborhood Association, and/or some of the other related neighborhood associations that are in coordination with each other, particularly properties like the Querbes Golf Course, and some of these other (inaudible) courses. And so I’m happy to hear that there is a consideration in the future for coordinating with the neighborhood associations and I would ask that specific consideration be given that those neighborhoods that are within the Shreve Center Coalition or in other unaffiliated to the Shreve Center Coalition Neighborhood Associations might be - - - there’s another person here in attendance, Ken Krefft of the Broadmoor Neighborhood Association that could probably speak more to the point of the neighborhood association as a representative, but if we could postpone for perhaps two weeks or a month to allow the city to become more fully aware of those areas across the city that are organized as neighborhood associations that are well on their way to signing up the members, the private property owners, the homeowners, business owners, some churches that would like to participate in a massive lease, and if they would coordinate themselves on the public properties, certainly it would be a benefit to the city maximizing the returns of the leasing process and also for those private landowners in those same areas. There is a mechanism in place, software that can allow this to take place very easily, and I’ve seen it demonstrated.

Councilman Shyne: Tim, we appreciate you coming down. I guess if you know where you can get to the administration, but when we get to that on the agenda, I don’t know what the vote will be. Appreciate you coming down.

Mr. Ken Krefft: (157 Archer) Thanks again for allowing me to do the little Jefferson thing recently. BNA is very pleased to support the city in what CAO Tom Dark said, and again the letter from this morning and the half page ad in the Forum today, (I have some allergies and my left eye is swollen, so I’m going to kinda speak with my eyes closed). And real quick, be not afraid to bet on T.B.O.N.E. Really a good group. Love the presentation, but we’ve been working with the neighborhood, and it’s been great Mr. Chairman for the BNA. I mean the memberships finally have found a way to grow the organization and get the younger people. Thank the Haynesville Shale for that. And we’ve got about 2178 acres and 4600 residents, we have schools, we have churches, we have Querbes, we have commercial property, and it’s quite an interesting civic exercise through which we’re going, and we really think at a larger level, we want to do what Mr. Walford said, and kinda take the city’s money from it’s leases and coordinate. And it’s been about eleven weeks ago tonight that from the MPC, Roy Jambora spoke to our group about the Master Plan, and all of a sudden, kinda quiet, don’t seem to hear, or read, or see anything about it. And so at a broader level, I want the city to be judicious in it’s application of the Shale money. Probably need, and Tom, I’m sure you’re on top of this, probably need 1 or 2 people just to handle this whether in the accounting finance area or the City Attorney’s office. Somebody experienced hopefully in oil and gas accounting. And when you do your bond issue, whenever that might be, hopefully next year in 2009, because it’s been a little over seven years, to do the Master Plan and Bond Issue and the Haynesville Shale to try and tie that triangle together for the benefit of all our city. No more $1 an acre and other radical considerations.

Councilman Shyne: How much at an acre?

Mr. Krefft: Well, I read something about $1 an acre, and other radical considerations about three years ago from your predecessors?

Councilman Shyne: And Ken, I believe you’re right. My heart still hurts from it.

Mr. Krefft: Remember Mr. Chairman, Chesapeake deal is seek a cheap deal.

Mr. Craig B. Lee: (035 Eustis) I want to echo the sentiments of Ken Krefft and Tom as it relates to the Haynesville Shale situation. We’re over in the Fairfield Historic District, so we will be meeting beginning on tomorrow in terms of that, and it would be great to coordinate those efforts as it relates to leveraging the best deals for the citizens. Definitely want to echo Ken’s last statement as well. So, it is great that a proper situation is getting ready to go on now with the Mayor being authorized to request under 189 The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, but I still want to make known that we are still investigating what has happened with these other resources, because we still have money on the table. And I’ve been informed by attorneys that any pre-existing knowledge of fraud to deceive, or misallocate resources can dissolve any particular contract. Even that of mineral resources. I also want to say as it relates to 196 dealing with Councilman Walford’s legislation, want to make sure that we have full details as it relates to how that committee will be formed and those particular individuals that will be represented on that and to lastly say, this is an enormous opportunity when Mayor Glover talked about hiring more police officers. If you stop giving acres away at $1 an acre, we now have resources to actually do that. So, since certain individuals believe that nothing can be done, we’re going to go after the past monies. It’s great that we’re on the right course now to get all of the money, but at the end of the day to increase from that five hundred and something, police officers up to that six hundred goal, if we now lock down our money, we’ll be able to increase that. Increase not only the pay for Policemen and Firemen, but also those invisible departments in water and those areas that also need to be increased. So, I thank you guys and lets keep the eyes on our money.

Mr. Charles Citrano: (7323 S. Lakeshore) I’m here on behalf of Barron’s Landing. I just want to comment that I’m glad to see it’s up and it’s clean, it’s viable. It’s got people working there. It’s something that Shreveport can be proud of and I think it’s an asset all the way around myself. And at the last meeting, I heard some lady talk and say that she’s heard gunshots out there. Yes that’s true, and it probably was me. We live out around the lake and it’s legal to shoot a snake. And it’s also there’s squirrel hunting going on out there, there’s deer hunting going on out there. All just past Barron’s Landing. So, we’re out of the city limits. I am. So that’s all I got to say.

Councilman Shyne: Thank you I saw the Chief coming this way. Chief, you can take your seat.

Ms. Lorie Eddy: (2800 Pines Rd) I’m here on Barron’s Landing too. I’ve been working there for about three months, and I have seen Mrs. LUKAR spend thousands of dollars. Only because I know I wrote the checks out and had to get her to sign. Thousands of dollars to clean up that place. Everyday, we have people calling wanting to know do they have a place that they can go camping on the weekends with their kids. I can’t understand why somebody don’t want us to have a family environment, somewhere safe where they can bring their kids, to go fishing, have picnics. I can’t understand that. And I also need to express a concern from yesterday. Me and a couple of our customers were sitting out at the store, and all of a sudden we hear a man screaming at the top of his lungs running. Mr. Kumar’s dogs were out after him. Those dogs were out all day long. We had to stand outside with a bat to keep the customers safe. They tried to attack my nephew twice. The Animal Control was called. The dog was too vicious for them to catch. He had to leave and go get backup. They took the dogs. In the meantime, Dr. Kumar had come up to the store just raising all kinds of cane with the officer. And I need to know why I have to be able to go to work and stand out and bring my customers into the store with a bat.

Councilman Webb: I know we have ordinances in place to protect the citizens from dogs. How many times has Animal Control been out there?

Ms. Eddy: Yesterday, twice. But both officers told me at different times they had been out several times.

Councilman Webb: Are they going to continue to come out until they catch the dog?

Ms. Eddy: They caught the dogs yesterday.

Councilman Webb: (Inaudible) dog owners house and talked with the owners, or do you know?

Ms. Eddy: I seen them yesterday.

Councilman Webb: Okay, I’m going to contact them myself, in fact I want to see them follow through on that.

Mr. Allen Doty: (4423 Norway) I’m also a member of the Byrd Allen out there on Cross Lake, we use Barron’s Landing for barges to go back and forth. I’ve been associated with Barron’s Landing for 30 years. I have not seen any problems with what’s been going on out there, and I’ve been out there quite a bit, or I have been in the past anyway. I’m out there some now. I thoroughly enjoy seeing what has been done in the last year. She has cleaned the place up, it looks good. I will look better if she has a chance to do something with it. I hope that y’all will go along with this. Thank you.

Mr. Robert Terrell: (7260 Buncombe Rd) I’m the manager at Barron’s Landing, and we have a work in progress out there. And we spent a lot of money trying to get the place back to where it was years ago. But I tell you what, I have a real problem when I have to reject people coming in from out of state wanting to use our lake, spend their money here in Shreveport, and I have to tell them they can’t do it. I have an RV, and I travel all over the country in it. And when I pull into a place, I wouldn’t want anybody to think that I’m going to be doing drugs or having shootings out there. I love to travel. People that come in here love to travel, and I have a respect for people that come in with their children and they want to spend some time in our city. So, the work that we’re doing out there is a work in progress. It’s not finished, but we’re well on the way. I would appreciate a favorable comment from you.

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman, is his middle name Mike?

Mr. Foster: No sir, James.

Mayor Glover: Murphy J. Foster, that’s, that’s - - -

Councilman Shyne: That’s - - - it kinda shook me up a little bit.

Mayor Glover: I was about to ask him if he was the third possibly.

Councilman Shyne: I thought about John Edwards when said if he was - - - well, we won’t go into that.

Mr. Murphy Foster: (6930 S. Lakeshore) I’ve lived here all my live, I was born and raised here, I’m retired Shreveport Fireman, and I probably been going to Barron’s Landing for probably 40 years, maybe a little longer. My dad took me out there when I was a kid. He used to rent a boat stall there, and like I said I spent a lot of time at Barron’s. And in the last year, I’m telling you this lady has really worked hard trying to fix this place up, and clean it up, and I appreciate y’all support to help her do this. Thank you.

Ms. Tanya LUKAR: (7016 S. Lakeshore) And my property joins Barron’s and I own Barron’s Mariner. And I just wanted to say that the city has a concern with juvenile crime. I don’t know what would be better than going out with the family on a boat, spending time together. I think that’s very bonding and very advantageous to fighting crime. Just knowing that you have some place safe to go with the family. And I also wanted to say that I know Shreveport has got a push on for economic development, and I think Barron’s would be an asset and be a good partner for that development. But other than that, Barron’s is a B-3 and the point which joins it is a B-1, and we’re asking to vote for the B-1 with an exception. I thank you for your time.

Mr. Bobby Sutton: (6923 S. Lakeshore) Which is probably about a half block from Barron’s Landing. I have live there for 41 years. I knew Mr. Barron well when he first began all that, and did a good job when he started, but over the years, it really declined. And it was in the declined condition when the good doctor bought his property, close to it, next to it. But then Ms. LUKAR came in not too long ago and bought Barron’s Landing. And what she has done with Barron’s Landing since that day is simply amazing. Gentlemen and Mr. Mayor, you know Cross Lake is one of the gems of the City of Shreveport. And it’s not just for the people who live on the edge of Cross Lake, it’s for the City of Shreveport. It’s for the benefit of the citizens of the of Shreveport. There have been over the past few years, attempts for the city to get the Bass Pro tournament to come into the city of Shreveport and promote Cross Lake nationally as a Bass fisherman’s paradise. Well, this lady has taken Barron’s Landing and is in the process of converting it into a five star facility for Cross Lake, for the City of Shreveport. And it’s something to be extremely proud of, the city can be proud of and it’s what one could easily define progress. It’s progress for the city, it’s progress for the lake. And you know as in most things, there are those who oppose progress. We’re hoping in this case, this Council and Mr. Mayor, that we don’t oppose progress in the City of Shreveport visa vi Cross Lake and Barron’s Landing. This lady has created miracles out there. She’s spent a great deal of money. Don’t mind telling you in improving this facility, and I hope you’ll allow her to continue to do that because we all benefit from it. Thank you.

Mr. Geoff Westmoreland: (333 Texas) I’m an attorney and I represent Ms. LUKAR, Sportsman Lakefront RV Park, which is the entity that owns the point in Barron’s Landing. I had sent the Council a letter yesterday with some bullet points and to the extent that you might not have had a chance to look at it, I just want to go over these things with you so that you will have the facts. When you’re looking at this, remember that my client only bought this property 11 months ago, so you may hear comments because we’ve heard comments in prior meetings, MPC meetings alleging to problems and issues and gunshots and things like that, and I submit to you all that occurred years ago. And to be accurate with the timeframe that my client has owned this property for 11 months. It has been approved by the MPC for a B-1E zoning. The limitations on that would be 7 RVs only, with a maximum stay. No more than 7 RVs, this is not a mobile home park, this is not a high volume RV park. 7 RVs. The hookups are already out there, they’ve been there since the ‘70s, when Mr. Barron used it for RVs and mobile homes. My client, Tanya LUKAR lives two doors down from this property. There’ve been some concerns about control and noise. We have the point property, you have Dr. Kumar’s property and then you have my client’s property. So, she lives there. The oversight will be on a daily basis and at night because she lives there. I know that there were some house members who wanted the opportunity to come out and look at the property and we invite you to do that. I’m not bashful about telling you what my client has done. She’s spent over $83,000 so far. In my letter I said $70 (thousand), she informed me today that’s been over $83,000 in rehab and upkeep and upgrades. I would also like to present to the Council, we have 120 letters signed in favor of this zoning. 52 of those letters are people who live in the 71119 zip code, who live in this district and support this zoning. Again, this is going to be a first class operation, just like everything she’s done so far. She has an internal rule, that none of these RVs will be more than 10 years old. We want nice, well maintained good looking RVs. We are not talking about a high volume issue here, we are talking about 7 RVs. With - - - Mr. Chairman, with your approval and the Council’s approval, there are some people here who came to support who may not want to speak, and I would like to see if we could have those people stand at this point. Everybody whose here in favor of Ms. LUKAR and Barron’s Landing, would you please stand. (13 People stood).

Councilman Shyne: I see one lady back there I recognize. She’s kinda one of the movers and shakers here. And as I sit here, I will not call her name, but she has one of the largest insurance agencies, and I don’t want to get in trouble by calling it because another agency might call me.

Councilman Webb: I have a question for him Mr. Chairman. The parking for the RVs, how close - - - how many parking spaces are in this entire lot. If you have 7 RVs parked there, how much more parking do you have there?

Mr. Westmoreland: Well, you have enough to park 7 RVs, plus the car that pulls them, plus possibly a boat trailer. When this was originally set out, Mr. Barron, when my client bought this property, she didn’t realize it was not zoned for this use. Okay, it has been being used this way since the ‘70s. There are 13 RV hookups out there. Okay? 13-15. We have decided that in order for it to look nice and have room out there, that we are only going to limit it to 7. That was through meetings with the MPC. They suggested that we were perfectly fine with it. And so, it’s a fairly decent sized piece of property. I am also going to ask that this be put into the record. This is a picture of what we’re calling the point as you drive into it. There are also pictures of Dr. Kumar’s property on here, that I’d also like you to look at. But we believe that 7 RVs that there’s ample room. And the MPC’s looked at it and they’ve approved it. Like I said, there were hookups for 13, and we just said that was too crowded. We don’t want that. We want it to look like a nice establishment and have enough room for everybody to be out there without problems.

Councilman Webb: The reason I asked that, I was wondering if we had 7 RVs parked there, if there would be ample parking for other people that were pulling a boat to dock and fish in the lake or whatever, if that would take up all the parking space.

Mr. Westmoreland: Well, the mariner is here and the point kinda loops around the inlet, and it’s kinda out on it’s on. So, really people who park, who drop off to fish, don’t really park on the point. They park up actually on Ms. LUKAR’s front yard. Because it comes down to Barron’s Landing. And they park around the mariner itself. So, don’t really typically use that as parking for the current people, so I don’t believe that it will create a problem.

Councilman Long: Well, what about sewerage? Are they going to use the sewerage? I was out there today looking at the site, are they going to use the sewerage hookups to connect to?

Mr. Westmoreland: Yes sir.

Councilman Long: They are two feet away from the bank of the lake.

Mr. Westmoreland: Part of the requirements that the MPC has required that we move the sewer outlets off the 162 contour line, so we will have to move those off the line. I think it’s 20 or 30 feet. So yes, they will be using the water and sewer hookups out there, and we will move them off the contour line with a plumber. We will have to have the piping moved.

Councilman Long: So I mean, physically where are you talking about having these things?

Mr. Westmoreland: Basically - - -

Councilman Long: Cause I mean, what I saw out there now, is there - - - I mean if you make it where the current hookups are now, I mean literally the back of the RV would be 3 feet from the water’s edge.

Mr. Westmoreland: See that’s where, and see we’ll have to move the hookups further inland so they won’t be so close to the water.

Councilman Long: How far?

Mr. Westmoreland: How far are the hookups or, how far are the RVs? The hookups are going to have to be moved at least 20 or 30 feet, I forget what the statute says, off the 162. So, 20 or 30 feet further in, which would then put the RVs at least 10-20 feet further inland than they would be right now, and they basically kinda go around the edge essentially, and we’ve had it measured and believe that that’s the right size for that number of RVs.

Councilman Long: I’m aware that Ms. LUKAR has some other property as mentioned that’s all green yard right now right in front of her house, or somewhere in that area. I saw some stakes where Mr. Kumar has staked out as sort of property lines. Why haven’t you considered putting these RVs maybe in that area or is there a parking plan for that area? What to me, a lot of what’s going on here is it appears to be somewhat piece meal, and it either needs to be some sort of master plan approach to this whole site in which she’s trying to accomplish, which I certainly appreciate the fact that she’s trying to spend money and improve the establishment and all the quality of service and life there. But I just - - - my thing is if we do this for this, well what about - - - cause I was thinking on a high use or high volume weekend, where there’s some events going on or just people there, I mean the parking around there is just going to be willy nilly. And there’s no organized parking like you go to the Yacht Club, there’s organized parking there. You know? And I guess my thing is I would like to see some sort of a more organized approach to the overall use to that property besides just us granting this for this, and you know without some sort of plan in place to address the whole thing.

Mr. Westmoreland: Let me address those in a couple of ways. First, the property is very oddly shaped.

Councilman Shyne: I’m sorry, let me stop you.

Councilman Long: You want to wait til later?

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, we’ve been asked by the staff to have Council Members to please speak into the mic, they’re not hearing, and it’s not going out over television.

Mr. Westmoreland: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Councilman Long, the property is somewhat odd shaped to begin with, and it’s been in that shape since the ‘60s and ‘70s, so it is a challenge, I will admit to work with, because it kinda makes a big “C”, the property does. One of the reasons we haven’t looked at putting the RVs on what basically makes up Ms. LUKAR’s front yard is first and foremost is it’s residential zoning. So we would have to go through this to put the RVs there.

Councilman Long: Well you’re going through this to do the same thing. So at least the process would be the same.

Mr. Westmoreland: The point is a more natural place because it’s scenic. People can step out of their RV and they can look out at the pretty lake, and it sits right out there in the lake. If we switched them, if we put the RVs in her front yard, and people parked out there, then all you would see basically is cars parked on that point, and you’d see trailers parked on that point. And we don’t think that the sellability of the RV usage is as good inland as it is out there on the water. And so that is kind of why we are focused on doing that. Not to mention the fact that it’s been used like that for a long time, and the hookups are already there. Really, it’s just a natural area to have this. Now, I don’t think that Ms. LUKAR is opposed to working out using some of the land around there for parking if there are parking issues raised by the city or by the MPC, I don’t think that she’s opposed to that. It’s just that when you drive out there, right when you come there, Barron’s Landing in on the left and her house on the right.

Councilman Long: Yeah, I’ve seen the whole thing.

Mr. Westmoreland: So, it just isn’t really. I just think you’d have a hard time selling people to come and stay in an RV kinda out front of Ms. LUKAR’s home as opposed to staying in an RV on this very nice point where you get up in the morning, and you come out and the lake is right there. So that’s really been the approach, why it’s been used as a point. And I don’t - - - she’s not opposed to anything that would benefit the property including looking at the parking issues or addressing parking or anything of that nature.

Councilwoman Bowman: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, could you have Dr. Kumar’s people stand as well?

Councilman Shyne: I’m going to ask them to speak first and then - - -

Councilwoman Bowman: How many?

Councilman Shyne: They got a bunch.

Mr. Westmoreland: Just in closing real quickly, I would just submit to you that there are a lot of people in support of this project, just trying to make a nice area nicer. Everything will be done on a first class basis, and while it may be a challenge to work around the land scheme we have, the commitment and the money that she has put into the property thus far in 11 months, is an indication as to how far she’s willing to go and she lives there. She wakes up and looks out her front window everyday at that mariner and at that point. And she wants it to be in good shape. She doesn’t want it to be full of junk and debris. I’d like to submit these documents to the Council if I could.

Ms. Misty Simmons: (4414 Shepherd) I am a very good friend of the Kumars, also go out there very frequent. And I don’t feel that the zoning area that they’re wanting to put these RVs in. 1) that’s a depreciation value if they ever decide to sell their homes anywhere around their homes. If that was to come into play, if you put an RV in there, then you’re looking at whoever you have come in, in a motor home and latch up there, they’re going to have parties, they can have anything. When you have a 4 year old child there that’s overlooking that, that can tend to be a problem. I do not agree with that. I was up there just a few weeks ago. There was drinking, wild loud music, and you could hear it from the house. And so, I do not agree with putting an RV park out there. And to my knowledge, I’ve known of that landing for over 30 years. My dad used to fish that landing. That landing has not changed much in the look in over 30 years. I just don’t strongly suggest putting it there, and I also think you go down to your gazebo, if you have a back yard and you go down to your gazebo, and then you’re going to be looking over, and you’re going to see RVs there. That’s just not attractive. Not when you have an exceptional valued house. And I know of their animals, and they’re in an 8 foot cyclone fence, those dogs are not going to just get out. And I’ve known of the drinking that goes on out there, and the boats coming through. And there is a (inaudible) where they’re not supposed to go but a certain limit through there, and I do not agree with that at all. I strongly suggest them putting an RV park out there. That is just - - - I mean I wouldn’t want it. I wouldn’t want to look out my door and see an RV park right there in my area.

Ms. Bea Cernigliaro (6934 S. Lakeshore) My husband used the mariner in July and he enjoys using the mariner and we will continue using the mariner whether or not the RVs are there are not. But I don’t think 7 RVs are going to make a tourist attraction for Shreveport. I mean, it’s just not enough anyway. It’s not enough property there, but it will cut our values in our property. So it will make a great impact on that. The dogs got out yesterday, yes they did. The gate was removed and put on upside down so it would lock, and then the dog catcher was called. We received a notice in ’07 that a child predator was living in one of those RVs. We don’t know who it was, the name was on there, but - - -

Councilman Shyne: Excuse me, but child what now?

Ms. Cernigliaro: Predator. You know what I mean, a child predator was living in one of those RVs, I don’t know if he’s moved out yet or not. If they say this is for 30 days, what’s to keep an RV from pulling out for 30 minutes and come back and rent another 30 days? Who’s going to monitor all of that? And I don’t know if this is true or not, but I’ve heard that the RV proposal would be dropped if this lady was allowed to drive across Dr. Kumar’s front yard to her house, instead of building her own driveway. I know he’s spent about $300,000 on his home there, and $40,000 I think building his driveway. And I think that’s all I have to say.

Mr. Albert Jackson: (302 E. 86^th Street) In discussing about the property (inaudible) every time we go up there she tell us to get out of her property and everything. One day we was up there working and she said, I’m not going to tell you another time, to get off her property.

Councilwoman Bowman: I didn’t understand you. Can you repeat what you just said, because I didn’t understand you.

Mr. Jackson: I said, one day we was up there working.

Councilwoman Bowman: Who were you working for?

Mr. Jackson: Dr. Kumar.

Councilwoman Bowman: Okay, you were working for Dr. Kumar.

Mr. Jackson: And we was doing the roof on his house, and the shavings was just a little bit on her property, and she said, I’m not going to tell you no more, get off my property about two or three times, and if we walk in her driveway, you have to go around you know. You can’t walk through that way, you have to walk on the grass to go around to the other side.

Councilwoman Bowman: Okay.

Ms. Linda Kinchen: (6969 S. Lakeshore) I’ve lived there for 12 years now, and it’s been pretty peaceful, so I thought in the neighborhood. But I guess based on the type of employment that I had in the past, I didn’t pay anything any attention in my own neighborhood, more concerned with other areas of the city. And here last year when I was contacted by Dr. Kumar. And I didn’t really want to get involved in it because of the position that I held with the city at the time. So I just kinda listened to him. But I sent letters to my Council lady stating my feelings about this issue. One of the things that he discussed with me was, I believe it was as Mr. Sutton said that there were trailers, the area had declined since Mr. Barron sold the property, and Dr. Kumar was a victim of that declining area. And he advised me that there were trailers parked around and behind on the point that they are discussing here. That there was drug usage, loud music, just basically a lot of the nuisance problems that occur with people who don’t have a vested interest in the area. And since my retirement with the city, I kinda got a little involved with my neighborhood. And Dr. Kumar has come to me with issues of vandalism to his trailer, his boat trailer. He took his wife down to the municipal pier and in taking here down there, I think one of the wheels was about to come off, and instead he made it back to the house, but he made it about as far as my house. And he stopped there he couldn’t go any further, because he was afraid to drive the trailer on into his hard. And he come running to my door and bamming on my door, so I said what is it? He was frantic. And he said, “They’ve destroyed my trailer, they’ve damaged my trailer, they’ve caused some problems with my trailer.” And I go, “Well, who caused some problems with our trailer?” And he wasn’t sure as to who, but he hadn’t had these problems until this issue came up with the zoning change. And so I referred him naturally to call the police. And because they couldn’t understand him very well, I had to relay the information over the phone. An officer came out, I explained what Dr. Kumar had experienced and I told him to write a report. Well I hadn’t been home over the last week or so, and I was advised that he had a problem with the dogs. And I just think that’s going a little too far. If somebody is causing that type of problem to get a zoning change. That’s just going a little too far. And so I’m here to speak today who I am in opposition of this, and the reason I’m in opposition to this is because most of these people that I’ve heard up here speaking, none of them live where you can actually view that point on the landing, okay? Even myself, but in going to visit Dr. Kumar, the way his house is set up - - - when you look out his window, you can see this point very clearly on two sides of his property. From his dining room and even from his den. You can see this point clearly. And if we allow people to come in there allegedly on a 30 day permit or residency, and we all know that when we go on vacation, I’m sorry, when I go out of this town on vacation, I’m totally a different person, I’m no longer the public citizen when I’m here. When I go on vacation, I’m wild and I do everything and so I feel like that’s probably what’s going to happen.

Councilman Walford: You’re on record.

Ms. Kinchen: I mean, I do. I have a good time. If that’s what they want to create behind this gentleman’s home, and I just don’t think that it’s proper and fair to him.

Councilman Shyne: Thank you. And I know the Mayor is saying that he’s glad that you are a different citizen while you’re here than when you’re out of town.

Ms. Kinchen: Well, anything that I see, any problems that I see, I’m still going to let him know. You know I’m going to speak my piece.

Ms. Glenda Lennox: (7348 S. Lakeshore) I lived out there about 17 years, and I keep going back to this, but I read the original zoning for this property must have had some specific reason. Apparently it’s operated an RV park illegally all this time regardless of the zoning administration, so I don’t understand why it’s a good idea now to rezone it, and when there’s more people that live there, more money that’s been invested there, more that’s going to be going on with the Haynesville Shale and all that as every where else in Shreveport. But I don’t understand why it’s a better idea to now. I can appreciate owning a business, and investing money. I had one for over 20 years here, had one in Longview, had one in Nacogdoches, TX so I understand business. But I also understand due diligence and finding out the zoning before you make that sort of investment and not contingent anything on that to make your profit. So, I just don’t think it’s fair to the people who own property up there. I can understand she’s invested a lot of money, but again if this business fails as several have in the past in the same location, we’re going to be stuck with the zoning in the future that got decided today and based on the decisions that have been made with or without legal advice, I don’t know why we should be punished for business decisions that were made unknowing when that information is readily available to the public. So, again it’s going to be loud music, open fires, litter, gunshots, that’s what we’ve lived with for all these years. I live right there on the lake less than a mile from it, and I know the people in Saybrook, which actually face it which seemingly have been forced to comply by reason of fatigue, I think was what the man quoted from the Declaration of Independence last time. But they have to work and aren’t able to continue to come. But we have turned in many families represented on the petitions. I don’t know where those documents are at this time, or if they’re forwarded to you from the MPC or not, but it’s not a personal thing. It is a business thing, but it’s our residential area. So we’re going to live with it regardless of what happens. And I would just ask you to put yourselves in those shoes and your property, and what you’ve invested, time, money in your property, and would you want the same sort of change in your area. I also understand there’s a no camping ordinance on Cross Lake? There is a lot of ordinances that have to do with it being a watershed in municipal water supply. I hadn’t heard anybody address those. Maybe they have been addressed I don’t know, I just hadn’t heard anybody say anything about those issues other than the sewerage that you mentioned, which knowing the dimensions of the property, seem to put that in a very awkward place. Because I know the property very well. Anyway, thank you for your time.

Councilman Shyne: Just before you go, you’ve explained yourself so well, Councilman Webb has some questions.

Councilman Webb: How far do you live from the park?

Ms. Lennox: It’s about eight-tenths of a mile, but on the water, it’s quite a bit closer.

Councilman Webb: I’ve heard a lot people mention the loud music, and I know when you’re down on the water, the sound carries a lot further. How bad is the loud music? Is that every night, just weekends or what?

Ms. Lennox: I can understand what they’re saying. I mean I see I think that (inaudible) park has been cleared, I don’t know during this time of the zoning consideration. I can’t really say right now. But in the past, it’s always been a problem. And it’s been a scary place in the past, and I’m not saying it would be in the future, but what I am saying is that we don’t know what the future would be. So we’re all having to gamble on that.

Ms. Kelly Stadtlander: (3510 Champion Lake) I work for the Kumars, I watch over their son, he’s 4 years old, and this is just horrible, this situation. It’s directly across from his house and it’s just dangerous. All this partying going on with people going on vacations for 30 days at a time in their RVs. No telling what can happen. People can get in arguments, there can be confrontations, and no telling what could break out from it. And a 4 year old living right across the street is just dangerous. I just don’t agree with it, and I know if it were me and my house, and my son, I would be just horrified. You know? Just terrified and angry, and just fight it all the way. And that’s pretty much all I have to say.

Dr. Candra Joshi: (565 Inaudible Cr) Which is about a mile from this property. We owned it for almost a year and a half. And at the time, when we bought the property it was Barron’s Landing. It was owned by Barron’s and one of the judges that since passed away, owned this property. His grandson or granddaughter inherited the property and she had (inaudible) it all the time when Mr. Barron was living, there is the petitioner lives right now. That place had been barren, wild, just like in the west and we want to change it. Dr. Kumar took the property and we improved the property (inaudible) next to the petitioners. So, she is sandwiched between two properties owned by Dr. Kumar and the other property owned by him and me together. Anyway I feel like if you allow this zoning today, and this lady on the basis of that certificate getting changed, sells it to somebody for (inaudible) because the gas leases and all that, we are stuck with somebody coming in and (inaudible). So, I personally request you not to allow the zoning change, and have the properties (inaudible) lakeside options. Thank you.

Mr. Don Miller: (239 Ockley) I practice law, I represent Dr. Kumar. Dr. Kumar asked me to appear and when he received a letter from Mr. Strong addressing Ordinance 78356, if it’ll show up there, it’ll probably help, as it relates to the 172 foot contour line, and I might add that Mr. Westmoreland and I began meeting in March and shortly thereafter, conducted himself, enjoyed working with him trying to resolve this, and we resolved the subordination of the right of use, down to the water line and have agreed in principle to the issue that Mr. Strong had addressed. There is another issue that Dr. Kumar asked that I come and advise or address the panel on, and that is the right of passage and the servitude to which there was a comment. Interesting in researching this case, Mr. Mayor, I had to go back all the way to when the city acquired the land, and unfortunately, I hope they corrected this 1906 pin Act 31 where the State authorized the sale, but reserved the mineral rights under the land of Cross Lake. Maybe it’ll keep you from having to go, if they’ve corrected that, you don’t have to go down there and get the money back for the city. And in looking at it, it looks like 1910 - - -

Mayor Glover: Mr. Miller, in addition to that $1 an acre, we’ve been trying to work on that one with the lake too.

Mr. Miller: I found that most interesting. Back to the servitude issue more germane to my presentation is that the servitude in question is the one that Judge C.J. Boling granted in 190-- in a court decision where the city was defended May 15, 1969. And it is a situation that I invite the Council Members to address before an approval or disapproval of the use of changing the right of use. Because at present the owner of that land has a dominant servitude over the City of Shreveport’s land, but below the 172 foot contour line. And they have a right to improve the road. It’s been a little gravel road there apparently for years and years. There was a comment about a possible servitude running up in front of Dr. Kumar’s house. Dr. Kumar disputes that that is a valid or legal servitude. There is an attachment to a deed that Mr. Barron signed, but it was subsequent to - - - he had already sold the property. And you can’t grant a servitude, 1) to yourself for the right of passage, and secondly, you can’t grant over somebody else’s property. The servitude in question is a little gravel road that starts right close to the property line, but that is not really an issue. That has already been granted by judgement of the court, and it’s final all the way up to 1969, and that is a servitude going out to the point from S. Lakeshore Drive out to the piece of land in question. But if you look at it, it does raise some questions, when you change the right of use to motor homes, large 18-wheeled type vehicles, it’s probably going to need some improvement. The (inaudible) estate has the right to improve that road at their expense, but it should be coordinated of course, with the city since you own it, as to how you would use it. Dr. Kumar’s interest is that he owns the riparian rights down to the use of the lake under the ordinance. But he realizes that it’s subordinated to the servitude of passage going out there. If they were to put a black topped road, how wide you’re going to put it, frankly when you go out and look at it, this is a little point, you can see out where the trailers are to the left and that little brown road goes out there, that is the servitude in question. And this is Dr. Kumar’s property here, this is the property being addressed. This road has been used when they have Bass tournaments, and of course Barron’s Landing and used for tournament fishing for years, but you’ll see how close the little gravel road comes to the water’s edge. Now there was a comment I think and it was inadvertent said about 162 foot. I think the property line is 172 foot contour line, and the city owns the dark line from there to the water’s edge. And they are granted by ordinance the riparian property owners right to use the land down to the water’s edge. But before you pass on whether or not you’re going to approve the zoning for motor homes, it would appear that that right of passage and the access should be addressed as to what the extent. And there is some drainage issues that may come up right there in this particular area due to some surveys that’s actually on the city property. It doesn’t show up on this map. But we would invite the Council to consider there is no issue of Dr. Kumar giving them a right of - - - he doesn’t have the right to give the servitude. It’s already been granted by a judge in this case, Robert Barron vs. William Ireland, back in 1969. And the judge in that case, he attaches a map and he describes this particular servitude, that’s the servitude in question. Not an alleged servitude that may come up here in front of Dr. Kumar’s house. Dr. Kumar disputes that that is a right of passage in front of his house. He concreted a drive there, and he’s been allowed permissive use only. I think I’ll just leave. If there’s any question, others have addressed whether or not it would be an excellent or bad use of this particular property. Before you make that decision, it would appear important to the comment in what type of use is this going to be. As I appreciate the law, this the estate here, is called the dominant estate, it has the right to improve the road to accommodate large motor homes, if that’s what it’s going to do, and it certainly needs improvement. I’m a motor home owner and I wouldn’t want to drive my motor home too late at night unless I knew where I was going. It comes awfully close to the water’s edge as you can see right there, by where those boats are tied. And I’ll answer any questions any Council Member has. That is the points I wanted to make.

Councilman Lester: I was going to ask Mr. Miller I appreciate your - - - feel like I was back in Civil Law Property. Is it your, in your estimation, you’re saying that before we reach the issue of the providence of the use of that property, that being Barron’s Landing, are you saying that the city needs to determine the - - -?

Mr. Miller: I suggest that the issue of the use of this particular right of passage that was granted by Judge McCord is there, and it’s final. It’s over the city’s property. Now part of it goes over the Lukar property and it’s immaterial, because they own this piece here as well as the piece on the point, so that’s not an issue to them. But the right of passage and where it will be and where would you put it, will you put it up here granting us 172 foot contour line, or is it going to be here, and we’ve tried to work this out, both Mr. Westmoreland and I’ve had contact with the engineer. We both visited with the engineer. I’ve tried to set up a meeting before this Council Meeting to try to get with Mr. Westmoreland and the people to come out and lets see where this servitude line, of course Dr. Kumar has an interest. He doesn’t have anything to say about it, because the city can grant it wherever you want to grant it. He doesn’t want it coming too close to his house. He realizes it might have to swing out a way. I don’t think these boats have permissive correct use along here. I think this is not a picture saying they’re using it, this is just an old picture that we had.

Councilman Lester: So the issue is the servitude that has been granted is in clear contravention or there is a discussion as to whether or not you can use the servitude and the contour lines at the same time and which one - - -?

Mr. Miller: No, the question is, the servitude is there and it’s final. So they have a right of servitude. I wanted to clear up any issue, someone made a comment about there’s a question of using a servitude, right of passage. That is not an issue with Dr. Kumar. Dr. Kumar recognizes he has nothing except - - -

Councilman Lester: I gotcha.

Mr. Miller: There is some discussion that there may be a servitude that comes up here along near his house across here, which he disputes.

Councilman Lester: Oh, okay. I understand. But the servitude that grants access to the dominant estate, has been established.

Mr. Miller: The dominant estate has the right to improve this for the purpose of which they’re going to use it. So, you zone if for large RVs, so obviously the property owner is going to have to improve this road to some extent. Probably widen it, black top it or so forth.

Dr. Kumar: (7020 S. Lakeshore) Thank you. Respected Mayor, and the Chairman, and the Council Members, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak to you again and explain my point of view. I want to start with the first thing, this is a view of the (inaudible) point. And the mark in the red is where some of the boats are here (inaudible) position and some have signed this document over here which was given in the last MPC meeting (inaudible) that none of the transcription have shown that we had given this later of 45 people signed in living in these households (inaudible) have opposed the MPC zoning change. We wanted to show you that this was in the last MPC meeting, they have ignored these facts and here is again (inaudible), that’s No. 1. No. 2 is I want to go straight to the dog issues. We, myself and my wife, we both work. We go in the morning, 8:00, we come back depending on (inaudible), my wife comes back (inaudible) 5:30 and I come back 7:30-8:00 after making rounds at the hospital. And yesterday I got a call from my rounds that my dogs were loose. And I stopped my rounds, I came back running. I said what happened, what let the dogs go loose. And I see here is that my dogs are already pounded. They are inside animal control truck, and I want you guys to witness that, and it’s very funny and it’s very amusing, but at the same time this is an act of opportunistic terrorism, criminal mischief and I have to call the police officer and report this to them. Now you will see that the dog kennel gat is upside down. And this is right as I have to call the police and show them that how come my dog kennel gate is upside down because we were not there on the property. And Ms. Lukar had called the Animal Control and got my dog impounded. The intentions are very clear. I don’t want to go (inaudible), that but this is a nuisance for us. You know we are trying to save lives here, not take up these things and dirty business. I have witnessed so many things in the past. She’s going to be neighbor anyway, and I don’t want to bring up more issues of these things, but I think there should be somewhere limitations that she should be a good neighbor and behave like a neighbor. And the next one I bring up the issue, when I moved to (inaudible) to this neighborhood, in this neighborhood, Barron’s Landing was on sale, and I was (inaudible) that time 2 ½ years before and it was asking price $1.6 (million). And after 2 years, again the same lady asked me to pay a price for that property for $400,000. So the amount of depreciation you see on this property, asking price when this property was abandoned because (inaudible) had cancer and unfortunately, this property went on sale. And it was in bad shape. The thing the whole property up to the mark and get the customer in that place. Somebody has to go cleaning, (inaudible) this is no WalMart (inaudible) what we are doing is we are trying to make living by making the place clean, back to the way it should be, and trying to get the (inaudible) out of that, and I think she has succeeded very much on that and there is a 65% occupancy out of 144 boat rental stalls, and those other boat launching over there at that place. Now there was a complaint by me almost like 3 months before (inaudible). The other point I want to bring up here is about the ordinance and about the (inaudible) over here shows that this ordinance is there clear and (inaudible) 2008-2009 Cross Lake regulation booklet, Section 28, (inaudible) 26, Camping. All persons are herby prohibited from camping from the shore of Cross Lake or in the area of 172 contour line of property except in the area where proper sanitation facilities are available. The point is in violation of a city regulation as required a city connection has to be (inaudible) to the contour line, but presently they have (inaudible) 172 contour line. And in the last MPC meeting, Mr. (inaudible) had promised that if you give (inaudible) and since three months, nothing has been done on that. The next point I want to bring here is Mrs. Lukar is promoting her Sportsman Lakefront as a family place where children and family can come and fish and have fun. I love that idea, but what responsibility she will take if there is committed sex offender existing in one of those RV parks. Are these people going to be background checked on those RV park? So there will be a (inaudible) and a predator on the same property together? Now, the other point I want to bring over here is there is a no buffering zone between my property as well as the zone change B-1 to B-3, proposed asked for with the exception RV park. Now all the noise and everything. My house is just a (inaudible) bedroom from there. And as Linda said, when you go outside for fun, then obviously you have fun. It’s not your residence, it’s not your home. People walk over there all day, and we cannot rest to go back to work again. Now, I mean I congratulate Mr. Calvin Lester on bringing the (inaudible) open bar rule, and I’ve seen him on TV on that. And I think that’s a great idea. And the same thing I bring here is borderline store sale beer and wine cooler. My 4 year old son has asked me so many times, “Dad what’s that in the brown bag?” They have a license to sell the drink over there, but do not drink in open public places unless they have a license to have open bar. So, I fully support that campaign, and lets make it active, and lets welcome that campaign all together. The next point I want to bring up here is we do not oppose maybe daytime the RV can come over there, but not overnight. Because in the night is a residence. It’s a residence for everybody. And the amount of money is going make out of those RV park, and the amount of people will depreciate over there. It’s phenomenal. And it’s not my property they’re having a half million house has been built over there in recent past. And we want more people to come over there and enjoy the Shreveport not to move to Bossier because of the quality of life and all of those things. So, I request here again that as my elected officials, would you allow to raise your 4 year old child next to open bar? Next to an unsafe environment? And 7 RVs parked over there of unknown people feeling unsafe in your own neighborhood or in your own house? And with this I stop. Any questions please?

Ms. Monika Kumar: (7020 S. Lakeshore Dr) Me and my husband own some other properties, 7022, and 7016 S. Lakeshore Drive. I’m here to say that somebody has complained about the dogs loose yesterday. Me and my husband were at work. We did not know anything about dogs being opened. When I came out (inaudible) I saw the door upside down. I gave the food and the water in the morning to my dogs. There are two dogs. One is a German Shepherd and one is a Labrador mix. But they are not aggressive and they do not bark too much. They don’t bite anybody. If they had bitten anybody, there would be reports. But they don’t’ get out. And the Labrador dog, he don’t even want to get out of the kennel, he’s so afraid to go outside. So they both stay inside. So somebody has to push them outside and keep the door open. And you can guess who it would be. And I really do not suggest that they should put the RV park there. I have a 4 year old son, and on the weekends, we try to go play outside, and we are not able to do that, because there are so much traffic, there is so much parking right in front of our house, which is owned by Mrs. Lukar. This is a residential area. I think my husband supposed to speak about it, but they are parking all the 4-wheelers for the people bring the boats over there. They park in the residential area. Mr. Westmoreland said that it is a residential area, we cannot park the RVs over there. So why are they parking the trailers over there for the boats. That should not be allowed, and I think we already have complained three months ago, and no action has been taken. And there is not enough space on the point to park (inaudible) and I do not really approve that. And my son has asked several times, what are they drinking in the brown bag? And I can’t really answer him. I see people smoking, that’s a bad sign on him. He’s only 4 years old. And you want to grow your children in that kind of neighborhood? Mr. Mayor said T.B.O.N.E. is a big thing. We all want that. We all want in our neighborhood. We do not want to live right next to where they want to put the RV parks. I really would have (inaudible) the property where we spent over $350,000 to stay in the property and I really like to grow my son there and have a good life and maybe my grandchildren there. But you can’t do that if you put the RV park and all that.

Councilman Shyne: Can I ask you a question?

Mrs. Kumar: Yes.

Councilman Shyne: How did the door - - - ?

Mrs. Kumar: I don’t know. I mean, that’s what the question is. How did the door make upside down? I give the food in the morning, I give the water, the door was fine, there is a mark on top of the door now, because it was at the bottom, and now somebody put it upside down and we cannot latch the door because it - - -

Councilman Shyne: So this was not done by you all?

Mrs. Kumar: Why would we do it? I give the food in the morning. We weren’t even home. I left 8:00, and he left at 8:00, and my son left. And he’s only 4, he cannot do it. But anyway he goes to (inaudible) and he wasn’t there. So there was nobody at home from our family. And they are at the Barron’s Landing, the mariner over there, they have people all the time, they are working for them, and she owns the property right next to us. So it is not us, and whoever complained to the Caddo Animal Control, has to be them.

Councilman Wooley: I was going to ask the question, do you know who called Animal Services?

Mrs. Kumar: They said they called from the mariner. And we called the police and we made a report for criminal mischief. And I’m going to put a camera over there so we can watch who is doing all those things. They already made a threat to my husband’s life yeah, I’m going to do it. They already made a threat to my husband’s life for Ms. Lukar’s son because you know one of her workers, Mr. Jefferson came, he went to the other property, and we had to call the police. We’ve had a lot of troubles with them since they have moved over there.

Mr. Westmoreland: Mr. Chairman, can I be recognized for a moment?

Councilman Shyne: I’m sorry, unless the Council wants to change the rules and let him come back up.

Councilwoman Bowman: I will move to let him have more minutes.

Councilman Wooley: Second.

Councilman Shyne: Generally, we don’t let people come back up.

Mr. Westmoreland: I understand sir, and I appreciate that.

Councilman Shyne: Cause if you do it, then Don might want to come back up, and then somebody else might want to come back up, and we’re never through.

Mr. Westmoreland: And let me tell you why I want to come up. First there’s been some legal issue raised that I want to make clear, and I think it’s appropriate at this point to address personal attacks that have been made against my client in these comments and you know attacks about my truthfulness as well. So, that’s all I’m going to limit this to. Mr. Lester’s question regarding the servitude, the servitude was granted by a judgement in 1969. That servitude exist. We’ve been through this over and over with Mike Strong and the City Attorneys. There is no question that we have access to that point. We have agreed with the MPC that we will black top that road, because they require that for a B-1E zoning. So we’re going to do that. I disagree with Mr. Miller that the city can now come back and redefine the definition of that servitude because it’s already been granted, and it’s been used for 30 years. So, I disagree on the legal principles with that. In essence, there is no issue with respect to that servitude in my opinion, and the city gave us the green light to actually go through with the zoning. That’s what took us four or five weeks. I want to address real quickly these issues about, allegations that my client was involved with messing with his trailer, that my client was involved with messing with the door on this dog kennel. I think these claims are baseless, I think they’re preposterous, there is no evidence, there’s been nobody seen my client or any of her staff do any of these things. And I think it’s just really sad that people would get up here and suppose and conjecture and point fingers and say, “Oh it must be Ms. Lukar, because she is opposing the zoning matter.” That’s completely unfair, it’s unfounded, and I would hope that you would disregard those comments. We don’t know how that gate got upside. Perhaps the Animal Control people tried to put it back on to get the dogs back in. The simple fact is the mariner employees called because the dogs were out running around the mariner. Dr. Kumar’s dog has bitten somebody. It bit customer of the prior owner of the mariner. Lastly with respect to the sewer hookups and the statement regarding what I said, when we get the zoning approval, we will do all these things. We will move the sewer hookups, we will black top the roads, we will put the fence up as I put in my letter, but of course, that’s all contingent on the zoning. So, I didn’t promise something that I haven’t done or that we haven’t done. If we get the zoning through this Council, then we will do all those things, and we will spend even yet more money. So I just want to make those issues clear, I don’t want to take any more of your time, and I appreciate you allowing me to speak the second time. Thank you.

Councilman Shyne: Okay, I believe at this point, we are ready to move into legislative action.

CONSENT AGENDA LEGISLATION

TO INTRODUCE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

RESOLUTIONS: None.

ORDINANCES: None.

TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES

RESOLUTIONS:

The Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 190 of 2008

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BELLE CHERRI LAND COMPANY, TO CONNECT SHREVE HILLS COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION UNIT II TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Belle Cherri Land Company 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 Company be authorized to connect the proposed commercial subdivision, 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 Wooley to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, and Shyne. 6. Nays: Councilman Bowman. 1.

Councilwoman Bowman: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to remove my vote. I’d like to change that to “NO” Bea, mashed the wrong button. Thank you.

Councilman Shyne: Well Okay, we will grant that.

Councilwoman Bowman: I certainly didn’t mean to do nothing like that.

Councilwoman Webb: Well I thought you were being consistent>

Councilwoman Bowman: I was talking to Councilman Lester about this case we just had before us, and I’m not sure how the other Council feels about it, but there are several Council Members who would like to go out to Barron’s Landing and look at the property and see what’s going on. I know Councilman Long, you went today. But they’d like to see this for themselves. And Mr. Chairman, can I suspend the rules?

Councilman Lester: Second.

Councilman Shyne: Okay, let me finish this one and then I’ll let you come in. I’d hate to do it in the middle of this one, and then Monty would be criticizing me, saying that I started something that I don’t have any business doing.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, and Shyne. 6. Nays: Councilman Bowman. 1.

Councilman Shyne: Now Councilwoman Bowman, I’ll accept a motion from you to suspend the rules and move what is that number?

Mr. Thompson: That’s No. 70 Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Shyne: No. 70, we will move No. 70 up on the agenda. It has been seconded by Councilman Lester. Is that correct?

Councilman Lester: That is correct Mr. Chairman.

Motion by Councilman Bowman, seconded by Councilman Lester to suspend the rules and move Ordinance No. 70 of 2008 up on the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

8. Ordinance No. 70 of 2008: ZONING APPEAL: C-17-08 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 South Lakeshore Drive 285 feet west of Shorewood and 350 feet north of South Lakeshore, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana from B-1, Buffer Business District to B-1-E, Buffer Business District Extended Use limited to retail spaces for 7 RVs and Boat Trailers as an accessory use to Barron’s Landing only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (G/Bowman) (Postponed July 22, 2008)

Having passed first reading on July 22, 2008 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 Lester to postpone until the next regular Council Meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Shyne: This piece of legislation for those of you in the audience has been postponed for two weeks, or until the next Council Meeting. And I would suggest if you have any more information to contact our distinguished Clerk of Council, Mr. Arthur Thompson, and I would guess if you wanted to, you would also have the right to contact individual Council Members and the administration. If the administration doesn’t mind me pulling them in on this, since there might be a little road, or a little question about the road situation. Has Mike looked at that completely Mr. Mayor?

Mayor Glover: I have no doubt that Mike has thoroughly looked at it, but now if you’re going to pull me, in do we get to vote too?

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be over there and talk to you in a minute. That was pretty good.

Councilwoman Bowman: I just wanted to make sure that we were aware of the differences in legislative and executive. Thank you.

Councilman Shyne: Wow, did that answer your question?

Mayor Glover: Absolutely.

Councilman Shyne: Okay, I thought it was kinda cute, but then again, thank you all for coming down. Let’s move on Mr. Thompson.

RESOLUTION NO. 191 of 2008

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HOLTECH BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT CORP., LOCATED AT 9508 ROCHEL DR., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Holtech Building & Development Corp. 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 Holtech Building & Development Corp. be authorized to connect the structure, located at 9508 Rochel Dr., 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 Wooley, seconded by Councilman Webb to adopt.

Councilman Wooley: Just for the benefit of the Council, 191, 192 and 193 are all part of the existing developments, they’re just continued to develop that neighborhood.. Thank you.

Mr. Thompson: Would your motion include all of those Mr. Wooley?

Councilman Wooley: If I could do so, yes.

Councilman Shyne: You can. Okay.

RESOLUTION NO. 192 of 2008

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HOLTECH BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT CORP., LOCATED AT 662 SUMMERVILLE DR., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Holtech Building & Development Corp. 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 Holtech Building & Development Corp. be authorized to connect the structure, located at 662 Summerville Dr., 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.

RESOLUTION NO. 193 of 2008

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HOLTECH BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT CORP., LOCATED AT 689 PICKETT’S MILL DR., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Holtech Building & Development Corp. 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 Holtech Building & Development Corp. be authorized to connect the structure, located at 689 Pickett’s Mill Dr., 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.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, and Shyne. 5. Nays: Councilmen Walford and Bowman. 2.

RESOLUTION NO. 194 of 2008

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BRIAN BUILDERS, L.L.C., LOCATED AT 9025 MITCHAM ST., TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, Brian Builders, L.L.C. 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 Brian Builders, L.L.C., be authorized to connect the structure, located at 9025 Mitcham St., 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 Wooley, seconded by Councilman Webb to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Long, Wooley, Webb, and Shyne. 5. Nays: Councilmen Walford and Bowman. 2.

6. Resolution No. 195 of 2008: Rejecting bids received for IFB#08-036, DOS Environmental Affairs and Call Center and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

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

ORDINANCES: None.

REGULAR AGENDA LEGISLATION

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

The Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 184 OF 2008

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

By:

WHEREAS, the City desires to donate Shreveport Police Department K9 ‘Brodie’ to Jon Flores, which serves a public purpose and renders a public service; and,

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

WHERREAS, Jon Flores has agreed to accept all responsibility, financial obligations and liability associated with the acceptance of this donation; and,

WHEREAS, the canine described herein is unable to perform his duties as a patrol canine for the Shreveport Police Department due to age, and is hereby deemed surplus of the City of Shreveport; and,

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

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due and regular session, that the Mayor be and is hereby authorized to execute an agreement between the City of Shreveport and Jon Flores, donating Shreveport Police Department canine ‘Brodie’ effective August 12, 2008, substantially the same as the document filed in the Office of the Clerk of Council on July 22, 2008.

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

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

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

2. Resolution No. 185 of 2008: Authorizing the City Attorney to place Beaird Industries, Inc. in default, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester) (Postponed July 22, 2008)

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Wooley to remove Resolution No. 185 from the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, so that it’s complete, I’m removing this from the agenda, because the Mayor and the administration has in fact placed the folks at Beairdco in default as I’m sure we know that there is a perspective sale with a Korean concern. And yet, while they are working out the details of their proposed sale, the curative period is running. So that people need to know that that period has not lapsed. The fact that they have announced the sale, does not stop the 60 day period from running, it is actually running and so if they have not completed their business and gotten the plant back open and gotten or put people back to work and the plant in operation, I think that would allow us to move forward in another direction in terms of finding a tenant. But that process is still ongoing. So I appreciate the Mayor for exercising their due diligence and moving forward with this. That’s why I’m taking it off the agenda.

RESOLUTION NO. 189 OF 2008

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO REQUEST THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, OFFICE OF THE STATE MINERAL BOARD, TO LEASE CERTAIN MINERAL INTERESTS OWNED BY THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS RELATIVE TO SAME; TO RATIFY AND APPROVE THE SUBMISSION OF THE REQUEST AND THE APPLICATION TO THE STATE MINERAL BOARD; AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BY:

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport may own mineral rights underlying the property described in Attachment “A” (collectively “the property”); and

WHEREAS, City desires to lease its interest in the property for oil, gas and other minerals subject to conditions contained herein; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 30:151 et seq., the City may, by resolution, direct the State Mineral Board to lease the City’s interest in the property for such purposes; and

WHEREAS, City desires to avail itself of the provisions of the aforesaid statutes by this resolution requests the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of the State Mineral Board to lease the property for oil, gas and other minerals subject to conditions contained herein and accordance with applicable provisions of law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Shreveport City Council in due, regular and legal session convened, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to request the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of the State Mineral Board, to lease certain mineral interests owned by the City of Shreveport and to execute all documents relative to same.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of the State Mineral Board be and it is hereby requested and authorized to seek public bids for oil, gas and mineral leases covering the property described in Attachment “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any such lease shall contain a No Surface Operations provision to read the same or substantially the same as the following language, except when the property description attached hereto shall indicate that such operations are allowed by the City of Shreveport:

“Except as otherwise expressly authorized in writing by Lessor, Lessee, its successors or assigns, may produce oil, gas and other minerals from the leased premises by drilling from a surface location on other lands. Notwithstanding any other provision of this lease to the contrary, Lessee, its successors or assigns shall not use the surface of the Lessor’s property for drilling or any other operation(s) without prior written consent of Lessor, which consent may be withheld at Lessor’s discretion.”

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any such lease shall contain a horizontal Pugh clause to read the same or substantially the same as the following:

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, at the end of the primary term or any extension thereof by operations, if the Commissioner of Conservation of the State of Louisiana establishes a drilling unit which includes a part of the land herein leased, the production of oil, gas and other minerals from such unit shall maintain this lease in full force and effect only as to such portions of the leased land embraced in such pooled unit, and this lease shall expire as to that part of the land herein leased not included in such unit, and Lessee, its successors and assigns agree to relinquish by formal instrument any portion of the leased land not included in a unit created by the Commissioner of Conversation while this lease is in effect.”

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any such lease shall contain a vertical Pugh clause to read the same or substantially the same as the following:

“Upon the expiration of the primary term hereof or any extension thereof by operations, this lease shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect except as to all that part of the leased premises then included within the geographical boundaries of a producing unit duly established by governmental agency or authority having jurisdiction, from the surface of the earth to a depth of 100 feet below the deepest depth from which any well commenced during the primary term hereof on the leased premises or on lands pooled therewith is completed and from which there is production in paying quantities, such determination to be made on a unit by unit basis. In the absence of units so established, this lease shall terminate except as to 40 acres around each producing oil well and 160 acres around each producing or shut-in gas well located on the leased premises, in as near the form of a square as is practicable, from the surface of the earth down to a depth of 100 feet below the deepest depth from which said well or wells are completed and from which there is production in paying quantities, such depth determination to be made on a well by well basis.”

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any such lease shall contain a provision requiring minimum royalty payments to Lessor of not less than one-fourth or twenty five (25%) percent.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any such lease shall contain a provision requiring minimum bonus payments to Lessor of not less than Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 ($22,500.00) Dollars per acre.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any such lease shall contain a maximum primary term not to exceed three (3) years.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such lease shall contain a provision expressly stating that any lease granted by the City of Shreveport and accepted by Lessee shall be without warranty of title and without recourse against the City, whether expressed or implied, and further, that City shall not be required to return any payments received or be otherwise responsible to Lessee therefore.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any error in any legal description contained in Attachment “A” which may be discovered by the State Mineral Board or its staff during its review of the City’s application which are subsequently corrected by the City of Shreveport, provided such irregularities do not materially change the property being herein authorized for lease, shall not affect any authorization granted or conveyed herein and the State Mineral Board is hereby authorized to advertise and subsequently lease the said property as correctly described.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application made to the State Mineral Board to nominate the property described in Attachment “A” for leasing is hereby ratified and approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provisions or items of this resolution 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 resolution are hereby declared severable.

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Walford.

AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 189 OF 2008

Amend the Resolution as follows:

-Amend the first “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED” paragraph to now read as follows:

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any such lease shall contain a No Surface Operations provision to read the same or substantially the same as the following:

Except as otherwise expressly authorized in writing by Lessor, Lessee, its successors or assigns, may produce oil, gas and other minerals from the leased premises by drilling from a surface location on other lands. Notwithstanding any other provision of this lease to the contrary, where drilling or surface operations are allowed by Lessor, such operations shall be permitted only subject to Lessor’s prior written consent.”

-Amend the fifth (5^th) “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED” paragraph to now read as follows:

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any such lease shall contain a provision requiring minimum bonus payments to Lessor of not less than Twenty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 ($27,500.00) Dollars per acre.”

-Amend the Resolution by substituting the attached “Attachment A” for the copy previously introduced.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Long to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Resolution No. 189 of 2008.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman?

Councilwoman Bowman: No, go ahead.

Councilman Shyne: I’m sorry, I spoke too soon. Would you explain that amendment at this particular point. Councilman Lester pushed me into this. I was standing on the bank, you know how y’all used to do.

Councilman Lester: Pushed you in? I’m sorry about that Mr. Chairman. I didn’t mean to push you.

Mr. Dark: As noted yesterday when we when through this, the amendment really does three things. It raises the minimum bid price from $22,500 an acre to $27,500. It makes it a little more specific how we would control drilling and surface operations on the few sites where we are proposing to allow those, and it substitutes the exact attachment that legally described all the properties that we sent to the State Mineral Board.

Councilman Walford: And to add a little emphasis Mr. Dark, minimum $27,500. We might well get more. That is the minimum we will accept.

Mr. Dark: Yes sir, $27,500 and 25% royalty.

Councilman Shyne: Looks like Mr. Walford knows more about the amendment than you do and I think you probably drafted it, right?

Mr. Dark: That’s his job.

Councilman Shyne: Okay, consultant huh? Thank you.

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

Motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Long to adopt Resolution No. 189 of 2008 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

RESOLUTION NO. 196 OF 2008

A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE HAYNESVILLE SHALE REVENUE COMMITTEE TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS AND/OR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND TO MAKE FINDINGS AND DRAFT RECOMMENDED POLICY AND PRIORITIES FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF REVENUE GENERATED BY THE HAYNESVILLE SHALE NATURAL GAS FIELD, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

BY: COUNCILMAN WALFORD

WHEREAS, it is the obligation of the City of Shreveport to use its resources to provide infrastructure and services needed to insure a healthy and vibrant city; and

WHEREAS, current taxes, fees, and other income of the City of Shreveport are insufficient to provide the infrastructure and services needed by the citizens now, and in the future; and

WHEREAS, natural gas in the Haynesville Shale located beneath public property owned and administered by the City of Shreveport, may provide unexpected revenue for the City of Shreveport; and

WHEREAS, the Shreveport City Council should established policy and set priorities to insure that any and all revenue from bonuses and royalty income generated by Haynesville Shale leases, will be used to insure, to the greatest extent possible, that Shreveport continues to be a healthy and vibrant city, and

WHEREAS, a Haynesville Shale revenue committee should be established to hold public meetings and/or public hearings and to make findings and draft recommended policy and priorities for the expenditure of revenue generated by the Haynesville Shale natural gas field, and to report said findings and recommendations the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the Haynesville Shale Revenue Committee is established to hold public meetings and/or public hearings and to make findings and draft recommended policy and priorities for the expenditure of revenue generated by the Haynesville Shale natural gas field.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said committee shall make periodic repots and a final report to the City Council.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Haynesville Shale Revenue Committee shall make its final report to the City Council on or before December 15, 2008.

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

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

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

Councilman Walford: Just briefly, I think this would be an excellent opportunity for a Council Committee to look at various options that we have. What I envision is asking various Department Heads to meet with us and I guess for lack of a better word, to discuss their wish list and things that they would like to see done. I’m certain that Mike Strong will tell us many things from Water and Sewer, Streets, and I’d like to ask each of those departments to give us an executive summary, so that when we do have a public meeting, we can have that in a more concise form. And certainly I’d like to open it to the Administration, because I know there are going to be issues that Ms. Washington, and probably Mr. Dark have relative to the use of some of the money. But I think that the public input would be very important. So I would encourage a ‘YES’ vote and I again would appreciate the opportunity to serve on that committee Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Shyne: I’m waiting to hear what the Administration says, I have a tendency to side with the Administration on most issues.

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman and members of the Council. I support and applaud the Council’s interest in establishing a process to gain input from the community at large with regard to any windfall that might generate from the leasing of properties in the Haynesville Shale. Obviously you could not engage in as many unscripted direct access public town hall meetings as this administration has, and not value and appreciate the input that can be given to you by the public. And so I commend you all and we certainly look forward to participating in the process. The one thing I would add is because I’ve had this question asked by more than a few people leading up to this, and it may be even some of the same folks that prompted Councilman Walford to want to offer the legislation. I’m very reluctant to count chickens from eggs that have not hatched. And so to go and begin to expend dollars that we don’t yet have is something that I think might be a little bit premature. But this is something that would be very fore-thinking, and certainly would put us in a position if and when that day would occur. But there are a couple of things that as I’ve said all the long throughout this process, 1) it goes back to this resolution as a whole, and I am reluctantly endorsing and asking you all to pass this. Although I am concerned about where the market is right now with regard to the price of acreage in the Haynesville Shale and certainly am very sensitive to the issues that were raised by Mr. Krefft and others regarding the city’s interest and desire to want to work with the neighborhood and other areas around Shreveport to maximize the return on this. The other thing I would point out to you is that the lands that were over in the Webster Parish area, that their Parish Attorney Patrick Jackson put out for bid I believe through the Mineral Board at least on two occasions, and on both those occasions, they received no takers for any of those lands. So, again it is certainly a situation I look forward to us having, a problem I look forward to us having to deal with, but being an old country boy, active in 4-H, I didn’t build my brood until I knew how many biddies I had coming to the house. And so I applaud and look forward to participating and again ask you all to pass the resolution and again, look forward to the Administration supporting and participating.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, I agree with you like I do on most things, and I just you know, I just hope we would pause before we go out to the public to make sure that we do have some revenues on hand, because it’s kinda bad to go out and if you give the public the wrong information, then they’re going to be looking to hold their feet to the fire. And at my age, my feet are kinda thin. But if you think it’s a good idea, I’ll support it, but I would hope that we would wait until like you said, until the eggs are hatched before we go out and start finding out how we’re going to spend all the money and we don’t even have any takers yet so.

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman, can I add? One of the things and in fact that this whole situation has driven me and others to begin to contemplate with regard to Shreveport and Northwest Louisiana, our state as a whole, is one of the things we’ve been blessed with as a state over the years, is our vast amount of natural resources. It’s always been whether it’s timber, or oil and gas, or wildlife, or shrimp and fish and what have you, it’s always been a blessing to be able to go out and make a living and generate some degree off the land, off the resource that the Lord has blessed us with here in Louisiana. However, there are those who’ve said that that also represents one of our curses is that because we’ve been so resource rich, we have never committed ourselves as a state, as a community, as a region to adding the kind of value to those resources and the processing of those resources in order to be able to increase the wealth, potential and opportunity for our state as well. And so one of the things that I hope that this particular situation will offer us to do is to contemplate that old bumper sticker that my good friend referred to during last year’s governor’s race. And that is “Lord give us one more oil boom, we promise not to waste it this time.” I think that’s really where we are, and I think we need to contemplate on that. Cause that boom appears to be coming and we need to make sure that as a city, and as a region, and as a state, we give some serious contemplation as to how it is that we use this as an opportunity elevate Shreveport and elevate this state for generations to come. Which is why I said I don’t want to focus on the spending end of it, I want to focus more on the bigger picture that this represents in terms of our opportunity to be able to lift up all of Shreveport, all of Northwest Louisiana, and maybe shift the paradigm. As they say, we politicians are often quick to use that word paradigm. I think there’s a chance for us to be able to shift the course of this region. If we’re visionary enough, if we’re smart enough and certainly part of that entails listening as Councilman Walford has suggested that we do with this resolution and figure out exactly where it is that we go and what opportunities might be before us. And so I welcome it and we look forward to it.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, I’m glad that you brought that up about the bumper sticker because I think Councilman Wooley over here who worked with our governor very closely, I think he might have had a hand in crafting that bumper sticker. And I commended him on that a number of times and I don’t know whether the two of you all had discussed that, but that was a pretty good bumper sticker. “Lord give us just one more oil boom.” Okay, all in favor vote yes, and I’ll reluctantly vote in favor of it Mr. Mayor, but I’m an old country boy like you and I’ve been taught don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 197 OF 2008

A RESOLUTION NOMINATING A PERSON FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE MAYOR FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

BY: COUNCILMAN WALFORD

WHEREAS, La. R. S. 33:2740.38 provides (prior to the August 15, 2008 effective date of Act 474 of 2008) that the members of the Downtown Development Authority shall be appointed by the mayor of the city of Shreveport, subject to confirmation by the city council, and two of the members shall be chosen from a list of five nominees submitted to the Mayor by the Shreveport City Council members; and

WHEREAS, La. R. S. 33:2740.38 provides that vacancies will be filled using the same procedure, with nominations originating from the same group that appointed the outgoing member; and

WHEREAS, one of the two DDA board members who was appointed from nominations by the Shreveport City Council has resigned, and that vacancy needs to be filled.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the City Council hereby submits the following nominee to the Mayor for the vacant City Council nominated position:

Dr. Tobin Grigsby

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 Walford, seconded by Councilman Long to adopt.

Councilman Walford: If I may address it to the administration. Mr. Mayor, I share your concern that we need to meet the statue, but we’re finding ourselves between a rock and a hard place. So at this point, I would actually defer to you and be willing to withdraw this assuring you this name will come back to you, but I’m looking for four others if we can do it tomorrow, and six others if we can’t. And I’m having a terrible time finding people who are willing to serve.

Mayor Glover: I welcome this name as one for consideration from the Council, and interested in seeing it come from not just this particular group, but I think it also has come to me by another group as well. But I also want to ensure that we afford and extend to the rest of the Council the opportunity to be able to submit names and certainly accept this as one of the potential names. And I’m very glad that this individual has chosen to put themselves in consideration. In fact one of the things that I asked specifically was that we begin to focus not just on folks who own property, but don’t live in downtown, people who work in downtown, but don’t live in downtown, but we actually go out and access those folks who are part of that growing base of individuals who actually call downtown Shreveport home and find at least one of them to place on the Downtown Development Authority Board. So, I think we’re going to get that done. And so we’re very excited about that possibility.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, I mentioned one, cause I really hope that if it’s possible to try to find two. But it seems like we’re getting more and more people moving downtown and this is what we need, and I know the administration is probably looking at if we can who we can pull in like for a drug store, or who we can pull in maybe for a supermarket, whether it’s Brookshires or - - - name me somebody, Kroger’s, cause you know you and I go to Super One and shop, but I don’t know whether Super One is willing to come downtown or not.

Councilman Walford: We would settle for Circle K right now.

Councilman Shyne: Right, but I would hope that the Administration would be looking at this, because more and more people and if you look around the country, there is a national trend of people who move downtown, especially when we start looking at this gas. I know it’s going down right now, but Monty I got a call the other day from OPEC and it won’t be long, and Calvin I like how you looked over at me, you and I might be able to get a little work or something in the later years. But gas is going to go up and I just have that feeling that more and more people are going to move downtown. And I want us to be a little bit ahead of the curve where we can have some drug stores and supermarkets and maybe a gas station, where we can pump some gas. Ron, I’ll turn it over to you.

Councilman Webb: Mr. Mayor, how many people are we looking for?

Mayor Glover: Well, if we wait until the 15^th of this month when the legislation that Senator Jackson just authored this past legislative session, the list of recommendations that will come from the Council will go from five to seven.

Councilman Webb: The reason I asked is I have someone I think that might be interested in serving. Get it to him and get with him, and get him to get a resume.

Mayor Glover: Please do so.

Councilman Shyne: But please see if you can find someone who lives downtown. That would be a good. Cause if you live downtown, that’s where you’ve got a big investment downtown.

Councilman Walford: That’s why I was excited about Dr. Grigsby’s offer to serve. For those on the Council who may not know, he is the developer who took the old 1^st National Bank building, now the Red River Bank building, and put condos above. If he is indeed appointed to the board, he will be the only Board Member who actually pays the Downtown Development tax. So he’s made quite an investment and he’s very interested in downtown.

Councilwoman Bowman: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Grigsby does he know all of the new legislation as far as reporting? Cause I used to work with him many years ago, and he had quite a few investments then. But make sure he’s aware of it.

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

6. Resolution No. 198 of 2008: Establishing the “Emergency Relief Fund” Program, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (F/Shyne).

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Walford to postpone.

Councilman Shyne: And this fund would be administered through Ms. Bonnie Moore’s office. I think that there are quite a few funds that she administers in order to help people who are in need. And this is not opening up the flood gates where we’re going to be looking at millions of dollars that’s going to be spent in trying to help people. I’ve talked to a few groups around town and I’ve gotten some pretty good feed back. Because from time to time, we do have people who are in need. In case of emergencies like a severe rain. I really didn’t know until Mike came up there. We do have a lot of sewerage overflow from time to time. I didn’t realize that we had enough water in our sewerage system to where those iron toxins come up. Cause I kinda live on a little hill and when it starts raining, (inaudible) in the house. I was taught that. So we do have people from time to time who could use some help and I think if we’re going to be this great city that we need to be, I think we need to have some funds where we can help people out in case of emergency.

Councilman Walford: As I have said to you before the meeting, I applaud you for this. I think it’s a great piece of legislation. We need it and my concerns when it comes up, I will address and hope that Ms. Scott can address for us during the next two weeks is whether it puts us in a position of admitting liability. But I have constituents who need the help as well. Some over abutting your district, and I think we have one lady who wasn’t insured that’s called us both. So I applaud you for doing this and I would like to get that opinion from Ms. Scott during the next two weeks. And I certainly am going to vote to postpone and then address it.

Councilman Shyne: And Ms. Scott in the meantime, if we do, I will not dare put us in a position of having any liability. If so, I wish she would look at the piece of legislation. If there is a way that we can construct it where we will not be because there are other programs that are administered by Community Development. And I don’t really think that we have a whole lot of liability in relation to those programs. But if so, if we are in a position of liability, I will be more than happy to pull this piece of legislation, but if it’s not, and this is what I’ve told some groups around the city who are also concerned and to some constituents who are also concerned. If it’s any liability, and of course that’s why I wanted it constructed where we could administer it through Community Development where we could minimize the amount of liability. Not admitting the city is at fault, but we want to give some help, because we give some help in remodeling homes. We don’t admit that the city was at fault for your house being deteriorated or other things like that. So, I wish you would take a good look at and see if we can go from there.

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

7. Resolution No. 199 of 2008: Suspending the effects of certain provisions of Chapter 10 relative to alcoholic beverages and Chapter 106 relative to Zoning for Lucky Liquor located at 161 Christian Street for Customer Appreciation Day and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford)

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

Councilman Walford: And I would ask for a ‘NO’ vote. And let me explain very briefly that this one actually embarrassed me. I talked to Cpl Collins, there have been no alcohol violations, and no calls for service. But now this leads to the situation that Councilman Lester is trying to address in some legislation that will come up later in the agenda. And after what Cpt McDaniel said, what I see happening if we allow a tent on a lot next to it, and it’s a package store. What’s going to happen if people are going to purchase things in the package store and violate the very ordinance that Mr. Lester is proposing. I don’t withdraw it because I would like to send a message that the Council does indeed look at these things and if you contribute to the problem, you’re not going to get the support of the Council. So I would ask for a ‘NO’ vote.

Councilman Shyne: Jackie, can you believe that Councilman Walford has come up with something that embarrassed him? I never would have dreamed that I would have seen that day.

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

RESOLUTION NO. 206 OF 2008

A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT (THE “CITY”) TO PROCEED WITH THE ISSUING OF NOT TO EXCEED TEN MILLION AND NO/100 ($10,000,000) DOLLARS LOUISIANA LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (SHREVEPORT AIRPORT SYSTEM PROJECT) SERIES 2008A-AMT SUBJECT AND NOT TO EXCEED EIGHTEEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 ($18,500,000) DOLLARS LOUISIANA LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (SHREVEPORT AIRPORT SYSTEM PFC PROJECT) SERIES 2008B-AMT SUBJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUNDING CERTAIN EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS OF THE AIRPORT SYSTEM, FUNDING A DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND, IF NECESSARY, FUNDING FEES, IF ANY, RELATED TO THE TERMINATION OF AN EXISTING SWAP AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH PRIOR BONDS IF DETERMINED TO BE APPROPRIATE AND FEASABLE, PAYING THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, by prior resolution, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana (the “City”) became a participating political subdivision and member of the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (the “Authority”); and

WHEREAS, the City has previously issued its $7,680,000 Airport System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2007A-AMT Subject and $14,540,000 Airport System PFC Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2007B-AMT Subject (collectively, the "Prior Bonds"). The Prior Bonds were used to currently refund the then outstanding $7,390,000 Airport System Revenue Bonds, Series 1997A and the then outstanding $14,000,000 Airport System PFC Revenue Bonds, Series 1997B; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to proceed with a financing through the Authority by the issuance of revenue refunding bonds (Shreveport Airport System Project) Series 2008A-AMT Subject in an amount not to exceed Ten Million and No/100 ($10,000,000) Dollars and (Shreveport Airport System PFC Project) Series 2008B-AMT Subject in an amount not to exceed Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($18,500,000) Dollars (collectively, the “Bonds”) in a manner and structure to be determined by a related ordinance, for the purpose of (i) currently refunding the outstanding Prior Bonds; (ii) funding a debt service reserve fund, if required, (iii) funding fees, if any, with respect to terminating an existing swap agreement associated with the Prior Bonds, if determined to be appropriate and feasible, and (iv) paying the costs of issuance, all of which shall collectively be known as the “Project” or the “Refunding.”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveport (the “City”), in legal session convened, acting as the governing authority thereof (the “Governing Authority”, that:

Section 1: LCDA Approval. The City is authorized to proceed with the Refunding through the Authority with the issuance of the Authority’s (i) Revenue Refunding Bonds (Shreveport Airport System Project) Series 2008A in an amount not to exceed Ten Million and No/100 ($10,000,000) Dollars and (ii) Revenue Refunding Bonds (Shreveport Airport System PFC Project) Series 2008B in an amount not to exceed Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($18,500,000) Dollars (collectively (the “Bonds”) to provide funds for the purpose of (i) currently refunding the outstanding Prior Bonds; (ii) funding a debt service reserve fund, if required, (iii) funding fees, if any, with respect to terminating an existing swap agreement associated with the Prior Bonds, if determined to be appropriate and feasible, and (iv) paying the costs of issuance of the Bonds.

Section 2: Structure of Financing. The structure, terms and conditions of the Refunding by the City shall be determined by subsequent ordinance of the Governing Authority, provided, however, that the terms of the Bonds shall not exceed twenty-five (25) years from the date of issuance and will bear interest at either a variable rate not to exceed twelve per centum (12%) per annum or a fixed rate not to exceed ten per centum (10%) per annum. The Governing Authority authorizes the authorized officers of the City to convert from a variable rate to a fixed rate when determined feasible by the City.

Section 3: State Bond Commission Application. The Governing Authority hereby authorizes and directs that application be formally made to the State Bond Commission, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (the “SBC”) for final approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the City within the parameters set forth above.

Section 4: SWAP Approval. By virtue of the Issuer’s application for, acceptance and utilization of the benefits of the SBC’s approvals are expressly conditioned upon, and it further resolves that it understands, agrees and binds itself, its successors and assigns to, full and continuing compliance with the “SBC Policy on Approval of Proposed Use of Swaps, or other forms of Derivative Products, Hedges, etc.” (the “Policy”), adopted by the SBC on July 20, 2006, as to the borrowings and other matters subject to the approvals, including subsequent application and approval under said Policy of the implementation or use of any swaps or other products or enhancements covered thereby.

Section 5: Existing Swaps. It is the intention of the Governing Authority that the existing swap relating to the Prior Bonds may initially be (i) modified, amended and/or reintegrated with any variable rate Bonds which may be issued by the Authority or (ii) terminated if and when deemed advisable by the City, upon recommendation of the Financial Advisor of the City and, that the rate of the Bonds shall initially be variable. In furtherance thereof the Governing Authority authorizes the authorized officers of the City and the Authority to modify, amend and/or reintegrate the existing swap until such time as the authorized officers elect to terminate such swap when determined feasible by the City, upon recommendation of the Financial Advisor.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governing Authority hereby authorizes and directs its Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Finance, and/or Clerk together with such other officials of the City to do any and all things necessary and incidental to carry out the provisions of these resolutions.

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

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

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

Councilwoman Bowman: Did you say Art what was added today?

Mr. Thompson: Yes. There were several resolutions that were added today concerning refunding issues. This one is needed as I understand it to go to the State Bond Commission.

Councilman Walford: So the others lay over?

Mr. Thompson: That’s correct. That is correct? I see the Bond attorney raising his hand so - - -

Councilman Shyne: You want to come up? You can bring them with you for back up. Okay.

Mr. Thompson: Well they were about to adopt it, so don’t talk them out of it.

Mr. Weems: I’m Ron Weems and Jackie Scott, the Bond Counsel for the city, and Sherrika Fields is with the Financial Advisor. There are two, this resolution allows us to go to the LCDA. We had pending State Bond Commission next week on the 21^st. And so this will appear before the LCDA on Thursday. We had a change of course in order to give more flexibility to the finance plan for the refunding of these bonds. I’d like to get a sense of what the Council intends to do two weeks from now when the final vote and I’ll explain that. We’re operating on extremely very short fuse. We have to get this deal done in August to the Bond Commission, because this has to be funded. Right now it’s scheduled to be funded on the 11^th and 12^th, I believe that’s Thursday and Friday. The reason is the continued downgrade, the further downgrade of the Bond Insurer on this issue is such that the liquidity provider now has a right to say, we’d like to be paid in full. We’ve told them we wouldn’t in front of it, but we would get a deal through the regulatory process and fund it by September. And it’s the second week in September that that will actually be funded. So there will be an ordinance before you introduced today, voted on, on the 26^th as well as I another resolution to hire professionals. The reason we’re redoing all that is we’re taking the different regulatory route and felt like we had to go through the entire process again. In order to meet those deadlines to be able to fund in early September, we have to get approved at the Bond Commission on the 21^st. What we have before the Bond Commission right now filed as of yesterday at 5:00, was a variable rate refunding scenario. And those of you who came to the meeting, we discussed that option. I’d like to talk briefly about what those options are, because I have literally until Friday, if you want to go fixed rate, I have until Friday to amend it or otherwise we’re going to get kicked off the Bond Commission, the 21^st meeting, and we’ll have to go to September which will mean we cannot, the city would not be able to fund the $22,000,000 to pay off the bonds that the liquidity provider has said we need to be paid off because of the downgrade of the insurer. So, there’s no fault of the City of Shreveport that this has happened. This is just a dynamic of the continuing deterioration of the bond insurance market across the country. And not just Shreveport, but many other public bodies are facing this unique problem that has really occurred this year. For those of you, I’m going to briefly explain both options, and frankly, I would like an indication today, because I’ve got to amend the application if we do something other than a variable rate bond. The variable rate bond would envision, we would have to borrow about $22 ½ (million), refund the cost of issuance and the underwriter’s discount, and to have the funds to pay off the $22,000,000 that we owe or actually it’s less than that. But it’s $22,000,000 funded to the current refunding escrow, so it’s about $22,000,000 outstanding that would go to pay that off. The issues about there are pluses and minuses to a fixed rate deal or a variable rate deal. One comparison on fixed rate in order to pay off the existing swap that’s in existing variable rate bonds that are due is there is a swap termination fee of about $2 ½ (million). It varies everyday, we’ve budgeted about $3,000,000 on that. In addition to go fixed rate, we would have to borrow an additional roughly $2 ½ to 3 (million) to deposit into a debt service reserve fund. That money is really our money, it’s there earning interest over the life of these and would be utilized to pay the last payment on the fixed rate deal. If you compare the two, either way we pay a swap termination fee, if the swap stays in place the entire term of the variable rate deal. Actually we would actually end paying the pro forma to pay more, slightly more on swap termination payments over those 25 odd years life of the variable rate deal if we, based on what the forward curve forecast shows. I say that because the risk factors in the variable rate deal is the volatility of short term interest rates, the interplay of the existing swap deal, and how that affects what the actual deal cost is over that period of time. And the cost of the letter of credit, and the remarketing fees that are related to a variable rate deal. All of those factors can change. There’ve been assumptions made as to what that is forecast based upon current market conditions, and it results in a - - - obviously we don’t have to borrow an extra $5 or 6,000,000 (inaudible) less money involved and on the credit of the city. But what we are faced with is if our letter of credit provider, if their credit is downgraded, then the cycle which we’re in right now will be upon us and we’re going to have to convert. So, what we have done is filed through the LCDA to allow lawfully available funds to give us the option if this starts to happen on a variable rate deal to convert to a fixed rate is what we’ve done, and that’s the way I’ve filed it with the Bond Commission based upon the sense I had from a couple of you on the Council. Lets contrast that with a fixed rate deal. A fixed rate deal, we have to borrow more money to pay the piper on the swap up front. So we never have any opportunity to do any better on the swap, but we also don’t have the risk that the swap is going to get worse. 2) We borrow about $3,000,000 to put into a debt reserve fund which is security in order to get the right credit rating, on our other interest rates on the bond. In a fixed rate, you have to have a debt service reserve fund which is the last payment. We earn interest on that money, and so we get the credit for that $2 ½ (million) at the end of 25 years, because it makes the last payment. The advantages of fixed rate deal are very simple. We know what our monthly notes are going to be. And we know that for 25 years. And we know that our rate is projected to be a little less than 6%. And we know with certainty what Airport is going to have to pay. The fixed rate option is actually preferred by Roy Miller because he’s in the real estate business. He said I can adjust my rental rates to accommodate that stream of payments, and I know what it is, I don’t have to run the risks that I ran or am faced with right now of having to redo a deal when the credit enhancement goes sour. Again, we filed the to balance that out on the variable rate deal, we did file for the right to convert if we see trouble coming with that deal, so we can convert. There will be some costs associated with that, but we’re drawing the deal with a lawfully available funds pledge, kinda of as guarantee, the city’s guarantee so we can use the city’s credit rating to obtain a better interest rate, should we go to fixed rate. If we go variable first and then convert, that’s why we’re doing that.

Councilman Walford: Can I interrupt you just one second? Go back to the lawfully available - - - and Tom, I think touched on this when we talked. We’re pledging the city’s fund for the airport?

Mr. Weems: Well, it’s kinda like a guarantee if you will. In other words, if the airport did not have sufficient revenues to pay it’s bonded indebtedness, then on a lawfully available funds pledge, then other funds available from the city could be utilized to pay that. It’s like a second lien. The reason we’re doing that is because the city’s credit rating is A, we can get a much better rate than if we were to just use the Airport’s revenues alone, which it’s unlikely that we could get an investment grade rating just for the airport, not that they don’t have the money, it’s just the size of the airport and the bond buyers are looking for, and we probably looking at best if we got a BBB rating which would cause a higher interest rate, thus a great cost to a variable rate deal. So that’s the way we did that to build in some flexibility, really for two things. 1) To get a better rating in the event we convert to a fixed. 2) To build in some flexibility in case our letter of credit providers got downgraded, to have a different way to go. We were trying to eliminate having to come back to you in a few months saying, ‘Huh oh, our letter of credit provider’s credit has gone down, we’ve got to redo this deal.’ So we’re trying to structure it so we’ve got some flexibility. There are some other things associated with the variable rate deal that you need to know before you make a decision. That is if we go the variable rate, and use this letter of credit provider’s LC, then we’re going to have to move the fiscal agent contract from Capital One, where it currently resides to Regions Bank. The Regions Bank letter of credit behind this deal and Morgan Keegan would be the underwriter. I’ve already mentioned the other potential down sides to a variable rate deal, which are the volatility of short term rates, the fluctuation of the swap as long as we’re in the swap, and the fact that we have remarketing fees and letter of credit costs that will have to be renegotiated. We’ve negotiated a three year deal on the current letter of credit. So assuming they are not downgraded in their rating, we won’t have to renegotiate the fees for three years. Which I might also add too, and the process, we did the airport deal with a Regions letter of credit with a one year term, and we took this opportunity to go ahead and negotiate an extension on (I said airport), the hotel deal was done with a one year letter of credit. When we first redid that, we were kinda of feeling our way what the options were. We were looking for as many letter of credit providers that we could, and we did not want to box ourselves into a three year deal. But now knowing what we know now, we’re recommending that that be extended for two years, so that the hotel deal is placed in place with credit enhancement for three years, and we’re also recommending if we go variable rate, that we do a three year deal on this as well. And the bottom line is that I do need a vote so that I know how I can get a (inaudible) as to fixed or variable rate today.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Weems: And I’m trying to explain the options so that you will realize that.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing on the agenda for the Council to vote on to give you and indication as to which way they would like to go. Perhaps one way to do it would be for the administration either separately or through it’s bond counsel to make a recommendation, and then have the Council react to that. The recommendation may be either the fixed rate or the variable rate, whichever the Administration would want to do and have the Council react to that, and maybe that will give you the (inaudible).

Mr. Weems: That’s all I’m asking for. I’m asking for cold comfort on that.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor?

Mayor Glover: I yield to Councilman Long.

Councilman Long: Alright Ron, if we stay variable in this deal, and at some point decide we want to go fixed later, we’re still going to incur costs to do this thing at this point, correct?

Mr. Weems: Oh, absolutely.

Councilman Long: Alright, so my point is, and of course I understand going fixed, you’re going to pick up some other costs, but those same costs that we would incur going fixed now, are they still going to be consistent, or at the same level they are now if we converted three years from now?

Mr. Weems: If you look at the - - - no, there would be some additional costs to convert. But we’re drawing the bond documents to go ahead and put the lawfully available funds in place as a subordinate security. So that it’s in place, and that it’d be less costly to convert. The trust indenture and the other bond documents will actually be drawn to have that feature. We will have to go back to the Bond Commission so there will be some expense, but we’re trying to streamline that so that the regulatory process will not be as long, and we can react quicker because of the uncertainty of the financial markets.

Councilman Lester: That was your answer to the question of fixed, was that in response to going fixed and what the costs are, is that your answer in relation to the variable issue?

Mr. Weems: The variable to convert. If you go fixed, you’re one and done. If you vote to go fixed, we’ve bought the money for 25 years, we won’t be back here on this issue.

Councilman Long: What would be the approximate rate right now?

Mr. Weems: It would be slightly under 6% is what we projected, about 5.84, but that changes daily. Just to contrast so that you understand the difference in rates, the rate on the airport deal is higher than what we’ll actually get on the Independence Stadium. Because they’re what you call A&T Bonds, Alternative Minimum Tax Bonds. So that the bond buyers want a higher rate, because they’re subject to minimum tax, whereas on the Independence Stadium, those bonds are not, so we expect those to go to market at under 5%. But again, that’s a lawfully available funds pledged by the city. No credit enhancement, other than the city.

Councilman Long: Why are these A&T bonds?

Mr. Weems: Well, because of the very nature and use of those contrasted with more of a General Obligation Bond for Independence Stadium. You’ve got private enterprise out there leasing space as opposed to the city operating Independence Stadium.

Councilman Long: So essentially, has anybody done an analysis that if we went variable now, and we converted down the road, just based on some scenarios, what the cost would be going fixed right now, what would be the difference between those two?

Mr. Weems: There’s not really an answer to that question. What we can do is we projected what the difference in cost is today, and that was about a little over $3,000,000 in terms of the total cash expended over the life of the deal.

Councilman Long: Say we converted five years from now based on some assumptions, what would be the costs for us going fixed?

Mr. Weems: We have not looked at that.

Councilman Long: I’d like to see that calculation.

Mr. Weems: We can get you that, but I can’t get you that for a sense of doing that - - -

Councilman Long: Well that helps me understand from a decision making standpoint. You know if the cost of doing this based on a potential scenario, from this option that you have throw into a formula - - -

Mr. Weems: You would have to assume the current credit, cause you’re using the credit of the city at that point, more likely than not. And based upon that, based upon those scenarios, you’re looking at essentially, I would think Mike, the same kind of interest rate that you would expect today, given the interest rate staying pretty much where they are, long term interest rates are. So a little less than 6%. But the actual cost for the professional to convert it, it’s going to be very little in comparison to what it is right now. You’ve got to sell the bonds, you sell them one time, and you would have, I don’t know $3 or 400,000 in cost of issuance on the fixed rate deal today. So you could be looking at that kind of number.

Councilman Long: Right, but you’re saying down the road, we would not be looking at that number?

Mr. Weems: Well no, what I’m saying is you’re looking at something close to that to redo the deal. Because you go to the Bond Commission again, you’re going to have Bond Lawyers, have the underwriter to sell those bonds, you would have some costs, but it will - - - sooner or later, you’re going to have some fixed costs. But that’s more cost of issuance related type things, but we’re trying to put in place the mechanism to make it - - - to shorten the regulatory process.

Councilman Shyne: Let me bring up this scenario, and I don’t profess to be a finance person, cause when I do, I’m going to employ Sherrika to do my finances, but from watching all of these analysis on television, and all this kind of stuff, it seems like to me that the interest rates are about as low as they’re going to go, and 4 to 5 to 6 years from now, it seems like all of this debt that we are incurring nationally is going to bump our interest rates up pretty high, because if we don’t know what Russia is going to do, we don’t know China is going to do, we don’t know what other countries - - - what they’re going to do that we owe a lot of money to. We really don’t know what the final cost of this war is going to be. So all of this is going to figure into where our interest rates are going to be. To me, it seems like it would be sound if we would have a fixed rate at this particular time. Because I just think further down the road, it’s going to rise. And if we don’t fix it at this point, then we’re going to have to go back in again at some point and spend money all over again for bonding attorneys and finance people or whatever, what is your projection on that?

Mr. Weems: I think that’s a possibility and that’s why I explained those risks that are associated with any variable rate deal. I would also point out one other thing that I should have pointed out earlier. One of the risk involved with this particular variable rate deal is that we’ve gotten where we’re getting a lot of eggs in one basket in terms of credit enhancement. We’ve got credit enhancement with Regions LC on the hotel. If we do it here, that’s 40. Then we’ve got 22 here, and then we’ve got a $9,000,000 cargo facility that’ll be coming back up next month that we intend to use a variable rate letter of credit there. Although we’re going to structure that deal with the same flexibility that we’ve discussed here. We deferred that by one month just simply because of the last minute change here, just fiscally we didn’t have the manpower, and the Bond Commission kinda encouraged us to let that one slide for a month. Because there staff is just overworked at this time too. Not just on our deal, but a lot of deals down there. But that is another one of the risk that I failed to point out earlier is that we will have a single credit provider enhancement from Regions on about 40, 22, almost $70,000,000 worth of our debt. And we’re again, we’re structuring it to where we can convert it to just Shreveport Credit too. But that is not the case on the hotel deal, because we did not elect to go fixed there for a number of other reasons. But you need to be aware of that.

Councilman Lester: And that speaks to a point that concerns me. If we do the variable deal, we may get a better rate, but obviously we’ve got a more risky situation as I appreciate it?

Mr. Weems: That is correct.

Councilman Lester: Of course that’s the nature of a variable rate. And the additional scenario is that you are still dealing with a credit enhancement and a letter of credit from one institution, and so if we were to do a variable rate, we would have just about, I’m not going to say all, because I don’t know how much debt we have. I know that you gave us a financial analysis, but we have a large amount of our debt basically held by one financial institution.

Mr. Weems: Well credit enhanced by one institution.

Councilman Lester: So, if something were to happen, for instance, the situation that draws us here today is because the people that we had, some of those credit issues were, their deal went south, and put us in a position of having to refinance all the debt or allow them to have to be paid and we would have to walk away and deal with the full faith and credit of the city, in that scenario. So, if we were to go with a variable rate, although we might get a better interest rate, we would still be subject to the whims of the market as well as whatever happens to this particular institution?

Mr. Weems: Correct.

Councilman Lester: At a time where, as I appreciate it, Wall Street is requiring our financial institutions to keep more cash at hand as opposed to putting it out. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to be supporting the idea of a fixed. Because I think that at the time, $3,000,000 over the life of a deal, which is a 20 year deal, 25 years is in these financial times is I think, the prudent thing to do, given the volatility of the market. And given certainly the volatility of the banking industry at this time, I don’t think that we should go that route. And as I appreciate it, as some point in the future, if the market is much better, and the rates are lower, even if we go fixed, we do have an opportunity, I think at some time- - - is it 5 or ?

Mr. Weems: 10 years.

Councilman Lester: Right into the future that we can correct or get a better rate in a 10 year period. But at lest we’re locked into something that we know, and as I appreciate, we would have a better idea of how we budget those situations in terms of payments, debt service, and those types of things, is a fixed line item. So whoever is sitting over there 10 years from now, knows this is the number that we’re dealing with and you’re not subject to the (inaudible) of the market. So, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to support your idea of going fixed at this time.

Councilman Webb: Mr. Weems, what right now, what is the difference in the variable and the fixed.

Mr. Weems: Rate.

Councilman Webb: Yeah, I know. What is the rate?

Mr. Weems: Actually, if you take the swap, the interest rate on a variable rate deal because of the swap is greater than the rate on a fixed rate right now. Because the swap that was done in ’05 or whenever it was done, ’07, I’m sorry, ’05 I guess it was, the interplay of that swap, and long term rates right now is causing the total interest if you take, like a variable rate of three and you add to it the letter of credit fees, marketing fees, and the spread on the slot is projected I think, it was 6.892 over the life of the deal, based upon the current swap. Now that’s not to say, that’s almost 6.9%, that’s not to say that there will not come a time going forward where you can terminate that swap and not have to pay $2 ½ (million). But based on today’s forecast and the long range yield curve, you have to compare well, what if we can’t get out of that swap, because if we don’t have a swap payment fund created on a variable rate deal, so we have to come up with a couple million dollars to be able to terminate it. So, we assumed if we’re going to borrow the money on a variable rate deal, that we would earn out this swap deal over the life of the bonds rather than coming up with $2 ½ (million). Now if the swap rate dropped to a point where it was economically feasible to get out of that, with funds from other sources, then you could obviously terminate the swap at some point in the future. But that’s one of the disadvantages, cause we don’t have a debt service reserve fund, but we don’t have a swap termination fund either. So there are risk associated with a variable rate deal is the point I’m making so.

Councilman Shyne: At this point, I think it’s a very bad risk.

Councilman Walford: But under the fixed option, we do pay $4,000,000 more?

Mr. Weems: We actually borrow at about between $5 and 6,000,000 more over the life of the deal, the cash flow is roughly the same. Because the lower interest rate cost, and we have to pay, but we have to pay more money back. I agree with you on that Monty, it’s about $3,000,000 more.

Councilman Walford: About $4,000,000. 38.6 vs. 42.1.

Mr. Weems: Yeah, I was using 38.7, so it’s 3. - - -42, 3.2 something like that. And again that’s just projected based upon the assumptions that were used on the foreign yield curve, swap termination payments.

Councilman Lester: One last thing Ron and I’ll be done. So, if looking where we are right now today, the choices are fixed rate of 6%?

Mr. Weems: Around 6%, a little less than 6%.

Councilman Lester: 5.8 to 6 variable. 6.9 blended.

Mr. Weems: We pro form at 4 ½ % variable rate, and then added to that the swap fees projected, the letter of credit fees projected, and what’s called remarketing fees projected over the life of the deal. And that’s how we came up with a financial advisor came up with a rate projected of total all in costs of 6.8%, but if you look at the cash flow because you didn’t have to borrow up front, basically the difference is the debt service reserve fund, cause you had to borrow enough money over the time, you’re going to pay the swap termination fee. Well that cancels out. You’re also going to have to pay the principle, so you’re going to have to borrow the money from the debt service reserve fund, and you pay and extra $3,000,000 back.

Councilman Lester: The variable rate increases because you pro forma at 4. If something were to happen where the variable rate increases, then you will be at a blended rate of higher than 6.9?

Mr. Weems: That’s correct. But in fairness, the rates could be less too.

Councilman Lester: It could be, but we don’t know that.

Councilman Shyne: But when you look at the forecast of the economy in general, it will not indicate that. I mean all of the indicators would indicate that we could be looking at some trouble in years to come with the kind of debt that this country - - - look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I mean six months ago, none of us would have predicted that. But it was there. And we’re looking at - - - we don’t actually know what the cost of this war is going to be and matter of fact, we don’t even know what the cost of it is right now, because we don’t even know whether we’re getting true numbers out of the administration right now. And there are other things out there that’s going to impact us, and I think that’s why a lot of the homeowners got in such trouble with this variable rate. I mean, it could be good at the beginning, five years from now, six years from now, you could be in over your head.

Mr. Weems: But let me also point out the critical reason we have to move forward is what happened was the continued downgrade of the bond insurer we were operating on a schedule thinking we were going to fund this deal by October 29^th, which was the maturity date under the prior default. But there’s further deterioration, and it basically accelerated the need to move this up another month. So again, these are unusual financial times and so.

Councilman Shyne: I’m ready to vote.

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to get to answer the question that Arthur Thompson posed if you all with allow, in terms of the position the recommendation of the administration. To give you all the basis upon which to proceed. Ron and Jackie and Sherrika have done exactly what it is that we asked them to do today and that is to put you all in a position to be able to consider either option. Because one of the things that we think has worked very well to facilitate the kind of participatory process that we just engaged in here today and what’s taken place in the days before is giving you all and opportunity as well as the administration to be able to explore all the various scenarios that might work best for us. Whether or not that’s coming and saying here is the one single option that we only want you to consider. The recommendation, the preference of the administration is the fixed scenario. Because we believe that that is the one that serves the best interest of the City of Shreveport. And there are several reasons as to why and you all have hit upon several of those. First and foremost it puts us in a position where we are in a marriage that I’m not quite sure that we want to make right now. Both in terms of some of our existing debt, plus this debt that we would be issuing here. No. 2, to put us in a scenario where our accounts and other things would be called upon to be placed in a certain bank is something that is problematic for me as well. I don’t think that that’s something that we ought to ever allow ourselves to be in the position of being told and that that is something we have to consider. If for no other reason Mr. Chairman and several of you mentioned you scenarios. I’ll reference specifically the IndyMac situation out in California. The IndyMac Bank which represented one of the most recent examples of exactly how being up to date, being solvent today could mean being insolvent tomorrow. And to have the financial fortunes of the City of Shreveport tied to one particular banking institution in that manner is something that would not be wise and not be prudent. And No. 2, while there may have been reason and benefit in years past to have put the city’s dollars in some of these more unusual more exotic type of financing mechanism, there may have been savings achieved. The bottom line of it is as you have pointed out as well, our current financial environment is dynamic and changes on a day-to-day basis so wildly, that the position of leased risk, while it might be slightly potentially more costly, we don’t know that in the long run. While it may be potentially more costly, is the one that I think best serves our interest at this point and time. But the feedback that we got from the budget sessions that we held with members of the Council, was that there was substantial interest in pursuing a variable rate scenario. So in the interest of insuring that that had an opportunity to get a complete full and absolute hearing. We asked the staff to be in a position to be able to represent to you all exactly what both of those scenarios represent and give the potential option of being able to choose either one. The administration’s recommendation however is the fixed scenario.

Mr. Thompson: In order to try to give them a sense of what the individual Council Members are thinking, three Council Members have indicated that they are in favor of a fixed rate, the Administration has said that there recommendation is a fixed rate. I guess now, a question would be, is there a Council Member or Council Members who could not vote for the fixed rate?

Councilman Walford: I very likely will not.

Mr. Thompson: So there are possibly two Council Members who would not vote for the fixed rate, so I assume that five - - - I don’t know if I could make that assumption with Joyce - - - at least four Council Members.

Mr. Weems: Again, I apologize for having to put the Council in this position, but because of that deterioration, we had to move up by one month our refinancing of this whole deal, because we could not wait until October, because of further decline. So it accelerated everything by one month. And we did postpone the $9,000,000 cargo deal simply because of the shear amount of work to be done, and then to take a more deliberate approach about that, and we’ll be back to you on that. But it will be on the September agenda for that.

Councilman Shyne: Since the Mayor and I are History buffs, what is that the Mayflower (inaudible) when they agreed that the majority would rule?

Councilman Lester: Go head on Joe.

Mr. Thompson: My assumption is that Mr. Webb would not be opposed to the fixed rate. Is that correct?

Councilman Webb: I’ll support fixed rate.

Mr. Thompson: So at least four Council Members.

Mr. Weems: Thank you for allowing us to go into this much detail and try to explain the options and again, I apologize for the short term nature, but that’s factors - - -

Councilman Long: We still need to vote on the resolution?

Councilman Shyne: Right.

Mr. Weems: Thank you Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson: Most of the Council Members have indicated their vote, but it has not been publicly posted.

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

INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS: (Not to be adopted prior to August 26, 2008)

The Clerk read the following:

1. Resolution No. 200 of 2008: A resolution authorizing the Shreveport Airport Authority to execute a permanent right of way and easement with Southwestern Electric Power Company and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 201 of 2008: A resolution authorizing the Mayor’s signature on a Pipeline Crossing Contract between Kansas City Southern Railway Company and the City of Shreveport and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Resolution No. 202 of 2008: A resolution acknowledging that the City Council has reviewed the 2008 Internal “Municipal Water Pollution Prevention Report” concerning the North Regional and Lucas Wastewater Plants, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

4. Resolution No. 203 of 2008: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept a donation from the Agurs Business Association and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

5. Resolution No. 204 of 2008: A resolution amending the fee schedule for the emergency medical services division of the Shreveport Fire Department and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

6. Resolution No. 205 of 2008: A resolution amending the Pay Plan for Municipal Police Civil Service Personnel and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Wooley)

7. Resolution No. 207 of 2008: A resolution declaring the intention of the City of Shreveport (the “City”) to hire professionals in connection with the issuing of not to exceed Ten Million and No/100 ($10,000,000) Dollars Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds (Shreveport Airport System Project) Series 2008A-AMT subject and not to exceed Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($18,500,000) Dollars Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds (Shreveport Airport System PFC Project) Series 2008B-AMT subject for the purpose of refunding certain existing indebtedness of the Airport System, funding a Debt Service Reserve Fund, if necessary, funding fees, if any, related to the termination of an existing Swap Agreement associated with prior bonds if determined to be appropriate and feasable, paying the costs of issuance of the bonds, and otherwise providing with respect thereto

8. Resolution No. 208 of 2008: A resolution authorizing an amendment to resolution Number 100 of 2006 and Resolution Number 158 of 2007 relative to 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.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Webb, seconded by Councilmen Long and Walford to introduce Resolution No(s). 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, and 208 of 2008 to lay over until August 26, 2008 meeting.

Councilman Wooley: I’d like to discuss 205, and as I said yesterday, I’d introduce and give somewhat of a presentation. On 205 obviously has to do with the pay proposal for the Police Department. I just wanted to take the time for the benefit of the Council to explain the purpose of this pay raise and why I’m proposing and how we can accomplish what I believe is a specific and significant task. Currently we are experiencing a serious retention problem with the Shreveport Police Department, roughly about 100 officers give or take, left since January 2007. So we really need to work on addressing the retention. As mentioned in the Council before, it’s not so much the recruiting aspect that I’m concerned with. I do appreciate the Chief and the Police Department for all their efforts in recruiting. They are working aggressively doing that. As a matter of fact, there is an academy going on right now. I believe with 18 SPD recruits. It’s the retention I’m concerned about. And so the proposal was simply to take the money that was in retirement. At the beginning of this year, we were at 13.75%, and now the insurance board has come back and said as of July 1^st, it drops to 9.5%. That roughly represents about $1.1 (billion), is now “freed up,” or able to be used elsewhere, since it’s not mandated to be used for retirement. My proposal is simply take that money and now allocate it into payroll and put is specifically to the area of where we’re seeing the retention problem. And that would be the officer, the Cpl, the Lt, and the Sgt. And that’s where we’re seeing the major attrition of officers leaving. And they are leaving primarily due to salary. Now that granted that number I cited of the people who are leaving since January of ’07 are not all leaving because of salaries. Some are leaving because they’re retired. Some have been fired for different reasons. But the majority of them have left because they are able to find work as law enforcement agents in other places. Some have gone across the river to Bossier Sheriff, some have gone to Longview, Garland, and some of the surrounding areas. Some are even applying for federal and state jobs. So I think it’s very, very important that we put ourselves in a position to be very competitive in regards to law enforcement agents and keeping Shreveport Police Officers here in Shreveport. I do appreciate the work that the fine men and women do at SPD. I would love to see the entire force get a raise, but I’m trying to deal with a specific problem which is retention with those four ranks that I mentioned. I believe we are able to do that specifically with the money that’s already in the Police budget. This is not going to come from the Departments, it’s not going to come by raising taxes. And just to kinda give you an example, right now as I said there’s a bout 100 officers give or take that have left since January 2007. If were totally to replace those officers with 100 new recruits, the lowest number that was given to me to train someone in the academy is about $80,000. Now if you take $80,000 x 100 people, you’ve now spent $8,000,000 replacing 100 officers. So, if we could replace 100 officers with $8,000,000 or I could address the retention problem with $1.1 (million). So by simply doing the math, it would seem to be more cost effective to provide this type of raise to SPD, to the ranks which I had mentioned. And granted we have officers now in the training academy and there’s 18 of those in the academy right now. Historically and statistically, about half of that number will leave in three years. Well that number represents at $80,000, $720,000. So historically and statistically that’s $720,000 that’ll be gone in about three years. And I agree with the Mayor, how we need more officers on the street. And I want to see us go beyond the mandated 541 and go to 641. But right now we’re having a hard time keeping what we have on the force. So I think our attention needs to be diverted or redirected in focusing our efforts towards that for now which I do believe would be responsible for us as a City Council, as a government, because obviously public safety is No. 1. We can have all the amenities and qualities of lives that we all share between the Council and the Administration, but we know if we don’t have the type of public safety that’s needed on the street, it will obviously cause problems for us as it relates to crime, public safety and the people that will eventually leave our city, and we really don’t want that. So this is a very serious issue that I’m very concerned about. Officers have come to me and expressed their concerns. And some may say well they’re just saying that because they want a raise. And I have officers telling me that the response times are getting slower because there’s less of them on the street covering more area. So it’s a very, very grave concern on mine. I do obviously will take the time to answer your questions that the Administration or my colleagues may have. Obviously this will lay over for two weeks, and like I said, I will make myself available. But I think it’s something we need to address. At this time, we have the opportunity to do it, and I think we should do that.

Councilman Webb: Councilman Wooley, I was reading the pay chart. I’m trying to see where I saw this earlier. You were talking about providing or giving pay raises only to people with a marked police car?

Councilman Wooley: No sir, this will actually go the Ofc, the Cpl, the Lt, and the Sgt. And it would be approximately about $152 a month when you break it down. But once again, that’s utilizing money that is now freed up because of the drop and the responsibility we have in retirement.

Mr. Thompson: I think he’s just amending the existing pay plan.

Councilman Shyne: Councilman Long, did I see your hand?

Councilman Long: No sir, I’m fine.

Councilman Shyne: I think you might have been a little fidgety there. Any more comments from any of the Council or the Administration?

Councilman Long: I do have a question. What happens next year or the year after? How are going to sustain this from a cost perspective?

Councilman Wooley: Well I guess I’ll give an example or to explain that. Like I said, it was 13.75 at the beginning of the year or at least going into this year. It now has dropped to 9.5. At least for the first six months, we’ve already used to spending that type of money into retirement. So, we’re just acting per se, as if we’re (inaudible) change the money we’re spending, we’re just redirecting those funds now to the payroll, versus putting it into the retirement.

Councilman Long: But what happens if that request for that contribution amount goes back up at later periods?

Councilman Wooley: If it does go back up, which by the way I believe that the (inaudible) did send a letter saying there’s the potential that it could go back up next year. May suggestion there would be that we need to look at some of the money we spend towards recruiting and put it toward the retention because if you compare, we spend approximately about $3,000,000 a year in recruiting. Okay, well I just gave you an example if you have 10 people, and they leave, and you’ve got to train 10 more, that’s at least $800,000. So, it’s actually cheaper to spend money towards retention versus it does recruiting. And you’ve got to understand that the people that we are trying to retain are not necessarily recruits. Those people are experienced, they’re knowledgeable, they know the city, they know the community, and at the end of the day, you really can’t put a price tag on their knowledge and experience.

Councilman Long: Has any studies been done on any other departments or is this department to substantiate that a retention factor is higher as a result of the higher payment? Is that a direct correlation or is there any data to support that?

Councilman Wooley: I’ve not seen any data to support that. What I’m seeing is - - -

Councilman Long: I mean versus other programs or other - - -

Councilman Wooley: As far as are tests done on any other agencies? Well it comes down to this. They’re leaving because they can get paid somewhere else. So we have to put ourselves in the position to be competitive. And by doing this right here, we will actually put ourselves with a southern regional average for the very first time in Shreveport’s history. Now granted, there are some cities that will never be able to compete with but this is done by the ICMA which is an organization which looks at and does studies. And so I have a copy of that. It shows other cities our size. It shows the regional average for cities our size, in this region of the country. And like I said, this will actually put us over the regional average and put ourselves in a very good position to be quite competitive as it relates to other law enforcement agencies with cities our size.

Councilman Long: Okay, thank you.

Councilman Shyne: Any comments from the administration?

Mayor Glover: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Council. Obviously we share Council Member Wooley’s enthusiasm for wanting to do something to address the pay situation concerning Shreveport Police Officers. And we share that concern. It takes me back to the comments I made during Mayor Communications about obviously we’re at a point right now where we’ve shown that given the resources that have been made available to us that we’ve been able to be good stewards of those. And we’ve been able to achieve some success. But there’s more that needs to be done. The question is what we do going forward needs to be in my estimation, not just piece meal, but it needs to be comprehensive. And unfortunately I think that what we’re doing here, might have some questions that I think appropriately have come up, that need to be answered. To Councilman Wooley’s credit, he acknowledges that his effort here is based upon an adjustment in retirement contributions which was budgeted at 13 ½ %. Has now since been adjusted to 9 ½. And that fact creates the appearance of additional dollars being available within the police budget. What it doesn’t point to is the fact that there are other expenses within the budget that have gone up as far as the police department is concerned. Fuel just to name one. Overtime that’s being used to go out and put in some of these other details that we’re using right now is another, and as Councilman Long asked the question is whether or not those dollars will be available next year, because Chief Halphen from across the river in Bossier who serves as the Chairman of the Municipal Police Retirement System has in fact sent that letter out to you all and to Mayors across the state informing us that we should not expect that the rate is going to stay at 9 ½ % going forward. And the specific reason as to why he feels that is that the retirement system for the Police system is required to maintain 65% of it’s investments in equities. And as we were just discussing a second ago, when it comes to the financial market, the equity market right now is one that’s all over the place. God help us, General Motors is under $10 per share for the first time in over 50 years. In others, Ford is $5 a share. Others are all over the place and go up and down everyday. And so if 65% of that particular fund is required to be kept within equities, then that is something that is very volatile and as we should anticipate and expect, probably will be an adjustment. If that happens, then as has been stated, that slack in the chain will quickly disappear. The only part that has me at this point responding, because we were going to be comfortable to have this be a part of the discussion that we would have with you all over the next two weeks to talk about this matter. The only part that concerns me is the suggestion that if in the event that next year, we find ourselves in the situation that retirement contribution has returned up to the 13% or higher than the place that we look to get the dollars to continue to make this pay raise would come from recruiting. That would be something that we would disagree with vehemently because there are other reasons as to why we lose Shreveport Police Officers other than just the decision to go to other departments. There are a good number of them who are no longer here with us because they themselves could not follow the law or could not meet the challenge that was laid forward by this chief and his staff. Others have just simply decided that it’s time to retire and wanted to go and do something else in life and so if we make a decision. And also would add to that, and Chief Huddleston could give you the specific numbers, but there are also as we lose officers, we are also gaining them. Both through those who are coming on as new hires and for the first time, I think in the city’s history, we’re actually seeing folks who are making lateral transfers. Chief in fact reminded me recently that we’ve even had officers that we’ve hired from Bossier who have joined the Shreveport Police Department, something I don’t ever remember happening. And so if the Council would be inclined to accommodate an adjustment in pay at this point by taking from something like our recruiting fund, which would - - - in my estimation greatly cripple our ability to keep that pipe line flowing of young officers, then we need to give some serious thought to what it is that’s being suggested. Which again goes back to my earlier comment at the end of the Mayoral comments. And that is that the opportunity that we should take to examine this issue as a whole should be the process that we’re in the midst of starting right now. And that is the budget process for this upcoming fiscal year, 2009. We’re at a point to where we need to stop and have this discussion and have it in earnest. There were some ideas, some concepts that were raised during last year’s budgetary process that talked about the Police Department, the Fire Department, City Employees as a whole and how it is that we go about moving forward with trying to address the pay issues involving all those. And so again, while I welcome the enthusiasm, and more than anything want to see that we make our pay not just competitive, I want us to set the scale. I want Shreveport to be that department that other folks are desirous of coming to. 1) Because it pays well, but 2) Because if you really want to be a police officer, then the place that you’ll get a chance to be able to maximize your professional potential will be here at the City of Shreveport. I’m just a little concerned about this initial step that Councilman Wooley is taking and as I said, look forward to having the discussion with you all as we move forward over the next two weeks.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, the questions been raised by one Council Member as to whether the Council got a copy of the letter from the retirement system indicating that the percentage may go up next year. I believe it went to the Administration, and while one or more Council Members may have seen it, I’ll ask Sharon, well she won’t be here, Tom we’ll get together.

Mr. Dark: I had provided a copy to Sharon.

Mr. Thompson: We’ll get it to all the Council Members.

Mayor Glover: We made copies in anticipation that this may have come up for a vote today, when it came to the Administration from Chief Halphen (inaudible).

Mr. Thompson: I just wanted to make it clear that I don’t think that until now, it’s gone to everybody, but we’ll make sure that everybody gets one.

Mayor Glover: Well I heard Councilman Wooley make reference, I assumed that you all had gotten it.

Mr. Thompson: One or more Council Members may have seen it, but we didn’t distribute to all the Council Members.

Councilman Shyne: Well Councilman Walford probably saw it, because he gets an opportunity to see things before the rest of us.

Councilman Walford: No, I’m sorry, I didn’t see it.

Councilman Shyne: Whether that’s inherent or not.

Mayor Glover: As quickly as Rick can run to the 2^nd floor, we’ll have a copy for everybody.

Mr. Thompson: Are we ready to move forward Mr. Chairman?

Councilman Wooley: I was going to say something else, did you want to say something?

Councilman Lester: No, no. I was going to say something real quick Mr. Chairman, and just to put a tail on it, because I understand we still have some time to discuss the issue, and it’s to a point that the Mayor just made. I remember early on my Council tenure, we had a situation that was just the opposite, where because of the volatility of the market in a very negative situation, we wind up having to increase the contribution to almost 20%, if I’m not mistaken, and it wound up costing us between - - - Monty was it $4 or 5,000,000?

Councilman Walford: $4,000,000.

Councilman Lester: In one budget year. And I remember being outraged at some of our friends in the legislature at putting us in that situation with an unfunded mandate that we had to you know - - - after dealing with a budget year, finding out mid year, ‘oh by the way, Tom you have to go print up about $4,000,000 and you need to print this up like yesterday because it must be done.’ So - - -

Councilman Shyne: Did Tom print it up? Tom did you?

Councilman Walford: Tom can just make money over there.

Councilman Lester: I think he’s lost his machine Mr. Chairman, we need to go searching for it. But in all seriousness the concern that I have is if we’re going to do a pay raise, and I think to a person, I remember a budget conversations that we had this year, to a person, we all look the Chief in the eye and said, ‘Chief, we want to do something about pay, we want to do something about pay that substantive so that we don’t have to always be in an arms race where you know we give the guys $1,000 this year and someone else does something and we have to do something. Let’s do something that’s real and meaningful.’ But it all comes down to having a stable source of revenue so that we aren’t in the situation that if we’re subject to vagaries of the market and I’m just concerned that this is not a stable source of income. I would much rather - - - you know our hopes and our dreams and prayers as it relates to the Haynesville Shale and things of that nature, where we have a pot of money that is additional, then I think it would be most appropriate for us to sit down and discuss doing something substantive for our Police Department as well as the Fire Department, because the other part and parcel of the conversation gives me a little unease is that I understand we have some needs and some issues in the Police Department, but I don’t think we have ever given a raise to one branch of our first responders and not done something similar to the second. And I think that would create some un-needed attention between and betwixt our service organizations, that being the Police and Fire Departments. And certainly one of the things that I had been pretty clear on being a champion since I’ve been down here is the city workers and working on trying to bring some equity to their situation, and I’m proud to say that was part of Council and Councilman Walford was here too, what we did was substantively, we addressed those issues and we dealt with those. But again I would rather us take a holistic look at pay, both for Police and Fire where we have a stable source of income as opposed to something that is (inaudible) variable. Particularly since I’ve been on in when it’s not so good, and you got the letter in the mail that says send us a check for $4,000,000 by the end of the month. And because the last thing you want to do is get these guys who are putting their lives on the line everyday looking for a pay raise, and it’s not there to the level that it should be. And I also don’t think giving somebody their 2% longevity pay and calling it salary is a pay raise. I think if you’re going to get that money anyway, and we’re giving you a little bit more than that, that’s not really a pay raise. I think if you’re going to give somebody a pay raise, make it something far and apart from other than what they already have coming to them. All I’m doing at that point is almost like a deficit spending situation. I’m giving you your money ahead of time, but it’s still your money because all you have to do is be here. I do applaud Councilman Wooley’s attempt to do something to address what is a need. I just have problems with the method, and not his desire to do something. I applaud his desire to do something, but I just don’t think this is the proper way to handle it. And I will say I would be more than willing to work with him or anybody on the Council to try to address those issues. I just don’t think that this is the best way of achieving that goal.

Councilwoman Bowman: I told Councilman Wooley, that I will support him on this. And I’m going to do that. I’ve listened to everything everybody’s had to say. But no one has mentioned budget time, when it does come up, we need to start cutting in other areas too in order to get - - - to do what we need to do. And I’ll be willing to look at that when the time comes. This time in a very serious fashion. Because there is a lot of over spending in other areas that the City is overlooking. Thank you.

Councilman Wooley: Thank you. Just a couple of comments I wanted to share in response to some of the remarks made. I did take into consideration the fuel, and how the cost of fuel has gone up and I think Tom I mentioned in an email about $1,000,000 more this year. I guess my response to that would be had not the retirement gone down at all, we would still have a fuel situation to deal with. So granted somehow, someway we’d have found the money somewhere else to take care of that. So I am just as concerned as anyone else on this Council about taking care of fuel cost. Granted that money would have come from somewhere else had I not had this opportunity. I believe it is an opportunity to act upon a serious issue. And I do appreciate the support of the Mayor and Councilman Lester in what I’m trying to accomplish here. I think we have an opportunity, a window of opportunity to address a specific issue with the money that is available now for us. Yes, the letter did say it could go up next year, but at this point, with this potential a percentage, we don’t know what that is. Also it’s cheaper to retain offices than to recruit officers and that’s something you should take in consideration. I’ll give you an example. Money it takes to do this pay increase, you can only recruit 14 new officers at $80,000 and that may be kinda cutting low, because I think somebody mentioned $88-90,000 now. But you can only recruit 14 more officers with the cost of this pay increase. So I think you should take that into consideration. It actually would save the city money in the long run. So I just wanted to mention that. And in regards to the Fire Department, obviously I knew that this discussion would come up. I spoke with Stacy (inaudible), President of the Fire Union, met with Chief Crawford in regards to this. I told him by no means is this an act of division. And so I’ve created quite well, this is a specific problem that we’re facing with the Police Department, I will have a specific opportunity to deal with it in this way. Just like I explained this would actually put us over the Southern Regional average for the first time according to the ICMA. I made the suggestion to Stacy over the phone and I made the suggestion to Chief Crawford in person that what we ought to do is look at the ICMA Southern Regional Average for the Fire Department. Let that now be the standard. I don’ think the standard should be Police versus Fire, cause all that does is create a spirit of division. Even Chief Whitehorn, when he did his study, and presented it back in the Spring through LSUS, he didn’t compare Shreveport Police to Shreveport Fire or Longview Fire or Bossier Fire. He compared to other Police Officers. Cause Police Officers are not leaving to become Firemen. They’re leaving to be police officers somewhere else. And so in saying that I think the standards should be what the other Police Departments or what other Fire Departments are doing in other cities our size. That should be the standard. So at the end of the day that’s what these men and women are going to go. Is to other agencies similar to themselves. But I did communicate that to Mr. Birdwell and to Chief Crawford. And said I’d be willing to work with them. Let’s pull out the ICMA book and lets see what’s going on in other cities our size in the fire departments and lets look at that and lets make that the new goal that we’ll shoot for. So thank you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Lester: And again, I don’t want anybody to misconstrue this, so let me say this real clear. I’m not saying that I’m against the Police Department getting additional revenue. I want to make that clear. Because there’s this Yutube commercial going on saying that there is some elected officials against the police departments getting extra money. So I want to make it clear, I’m not one of those. Don’t know who those people are, am not one of them. My issue is if we’re going to give these guys the money that they earn and that they deserve because in my mind, there are probably about three groups of people that we can’t afford to pay what they’re worth. Teachers, Policemen and Firemen. Okay, so having said that, my issue is - - -

Councilman Shyne: I want to put the preachers in there.

Councilman Lester: I said teachers because that’s what my wife and mother do. I got my priorities in order Mr. Chairman. But having said that, my concern is getting them a stable stream of revenue to do that. And again, have no dispersion or cast no dispersion on your desire to give them the money. I just don’t think that this is the fund to do it from, because I have been here, when I got on the Council, we were rocking along fine, and one of those letters that Tom gave us, and we went from 11 to 20 in one year. And that was a $4,000,000 hit. And with the budgets being what they are you don’t give people a pay raise stable source of revenue. And that’s my issue. If we could find a stable source of revenue, if there was a guarantee that in fact we went from the 13 to the 9, if it was 9 fixed over a period of years, hey lets vote, lets do it today. But I have seen that number go from 9.5 to 13. From 13 to 20 in a year and go back down. My concern is give ‘em a pay raise, absolutely, but do it with a stable source of revenue so that we don’t have these issues. Because the last thing you want to do, once you give them a pay raise, you can’t take it back. And we can’t then - - - I mean what do we do then? Give them a pay raise based on unstable source of income and then we have to go make draconian cuts on everything. We start laying people off at SPAR, we start laying people off over at other places, and then we start cutting municipal services. And for the record, and y’all were there, I voted to spend less money on lawyers, and that’s what I do. So I mean I offered to cut something that I do to get to that point, and that’s just unheard of. But again in my mind, lets get a stable source of income. And I think what Monty has said in terms of putting a committee together with the Haynesville Shale once we get those resources, I think this should be Priority No. 1 when we start to deal with those things.

Councilman Wooley: Just one more. In response to that Councilman Lester, because this is a serious issue now, and there is available funds now, granted this administration like many administrations always make adjustments as time progresses. There’s always adjustments in the budgets. All kinds of needs come up. So I think we have the opportunity now to address something that is very serious matter in my opinion right now. The funds are available now, we have no problem now, and I think we can make the proper adjustments accordingly, but I think there is the means within the budget, cause like I said, it’s actually cheaper to retain than to recruit. 14 people at $1.1 (million) or I can give a raise to four ranks for $1.1 (million). So that is why there is an urgency now for what I think is such a serious matter. And so I think if we have to, adjustments can be made within that budget right now to address any future situations we may face. Thank you. I do appreciate the comments.

Mayor Glover: Two things, and I apologize I don’t want to belabor the point. But No. 1, I’ve got to since Council Member Lester threw that soft elbow at me earlier, I’ve got to go ahead and confess I was one of those legislators since I served throughout the entirety of my legislative careers, a member of the Local and Municipal Affairs Committee, I was one of those legislators that sat there in Committee and had to vote against bills that were being offered by some members of the legislature that sought to try and offer municipalities relief with regard to some of those bumps on the retirement system on the Fire Department side, because being a legislator at that time, I had to accept my first responsibility, and that was to protect the fiduciary health of the State of Louisiana. And had we entertained the notion of allowing the State to give local municipalities relief for any of those spikes in the retirement contributions that they were being required to make, that number while it might have been not necessarily all that large when you look at it from Shreveport to Bossier, to Haughton, to Ferriday, to Alexandria. But when you took all of those municipalities all across the state and pulled them altogether, and saw what the collective additional contributions were going to be, it represented a significant fiscal number for the State. And so rather than accepting that responsibility, we rejected those bills, and said Shreveport you’re going to stay on that wall, you will stand on that wall, and you will accept that responsibility, whatever it is that you have to do to meet it. And so I want to give you some real world examples. You can’t expect help from someplace else other than here, if and when we find ourselves in those situations and circumstances again. And No. 2, I might lose my Police Chief, if I don’t give him an opportunity to come up and respond to some of the things that he feels compelled to respond to here regarding some of the conversation here.

Chief Whitehorn: And I promise Mr. Chairman, I won’t be long, but as I was sitting there listening, I think all of you know how passionate I am about our Police Officers, and how passionate and concerned I am about our Police Officers’ salary. That was one of the first things that I sought to address in being appointed as Chief of Police. And I commend Councilman Wooley and the rest of you, because each of you have told me that you’re in support of these officers getting a pay raise. I contend that these officers need a pay raise, because they’re the hard working police officers in this area. Nobody is addressing as much as we are having to address in the City of Shreveport. Nobody. When we did the study, we commissioned LSUS, and they agreed with us that we were underpaid. As I talked to my officers and I talked about core values, one of the values that I hold dearly as a core value and as a value that I think anyone should have even in their personal life is honesty. And what I’m afraid of is that some of the information that is being shared and given to y’all from some folks are not accurate information. That’s unfortunate. Very unfortunate. I listened and I read the Fax Net Update talking about our response times are slower. I ran the numbers on our response times, and I’ll provide you a copy of our response times when I finish. They said that we had lost 100 officers since January 1, 2007. In 2007, we lost 44 officers, this year, we’ve lost 28 officers. Now you’d have to go back to 2006 to come up with the 100 officers. I have those numbers to share as well. It said an overwhelming number is going to other police departments locally. None of our officers that’s leaving, leave for better paying jobs and not necessarily with other Police Departments. Because we are all right there together basically in salary, except for Bossier Parish Sheriff’s office. Now we’ve got a few that’s gone out of state, relocated to Memphis, TN. Gone over to Garland, TX. But others left because of family businesses and relocating and other reasons. I presented to the Administration and to Council what I consider to be very substantial pay plan. A very detailed pay plan, and that is the plan that I would that whenever we decide to vote on something that we vote on. And the reason I say this is because as I look at the plan that is being asked in the resolution is leaving out some things. It’s leaving out some of my police officers. An example: Captains pay starting salary will increase only $4 in this new plan. Asst Chiefs pay, 0 increase. The separation in ranks is very critical to us and in the pay grid, we made sure that we had a decent separation in ranks for incentive for people to want to be promoted. And the current plan does not do that that’s before you. Another issue that y’all got onto me about was our jailers. Jailers are not mentioned in this plan. They’re critical to our operation. So, what I would ask is that if we’re going to vote on something, lets vote on a plan that’s going to be sufficient for all. We talked about attrition, and the numbers that I’m going to share with you, it’s going to show that the attrition rates for Shreveport Police Department average around 6-7%. Average Annual Attrition Rates - Police Chief Magazine, July 2008. This is in IACP, International Association of Chiefs of Police Magazine. The attrition average turnover rate is 14.2%. 14.2%. For a large, very large agency, attrition rates are 10.2% and we’re at 7. We’re below the national average in attrition. The reason we need a pay raise is because of the work our folks are doing, and I think that should be the focus. And I really appreciate all of you and the support, but I think we need to go towards this pay grid, rather than giving some of the officers money and not others.

Councilman Walford: Well, I’m just going to suggest that we’re debating something that can’t be voted on for two weeks. And there’s a lot of time, I would like to have the information that you’re talking about if you would give it to me.

Chief Whitehorn: I’ll get it to you.

Councilman Walford: But we’re really sitting here debating something that’s really for introduction. And we can’t vote on it today. We can go on discussing it, but I think we’d be better served to get information over this next two weeks. And be prepared to vote.

Councilman Shyne: Well, I don’t see anything wrong with it, you can never had too much information. And you never can be too prepared, and I guess you can never start out too early to reach your goals. So, Councilman Wooley?

Councilman Wooley: I have no more comments Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Councilman Shyne: Chief, would you make that information available to Councilman Walford. You might want to have it delivered.

Councilwoman Bowman: I have a question. One of the officers mentioned that you had a plan?

Chief Whitehorn: Yes Ma’am.

Councilwoman Bowman: Did you present that plan to us?

Chief Whitehorn: Yes Ma’am. That plan, remember I gave you all a pay grid, when we gave y’all the pay study?

Councilwoman Bowman: Was that during the budget or when?

Chief Whitehorn: When I issued the pay study, and it showed a grid starting at $35,000 a year. I will re-submit it, but I did present that.

Mayor Glover: It was during the Spring wasn’t it Chief?

Councilman Lester: That was the grid that if I’m not mistaken led to us doing that first adjustment during the budget time, if I’m not mistaken.

Chief Whitehorn: It was after that.

Councilman Lester: I know the grid he’s talking about. I know he gave us a grid.

Councilwoman Bowman: Well that’s what I’m talking about. It wasn’t then, and I’m trying to establish when, because I usually try to keep up with it.

Chief Whitehorn: Was it in January? I do remember submitting it with the pay plan. Pay study, I’m sorry.

Councilman Wooley: Yeah, we did get one at that time, I just heard there was another one that you recently had done?

Chief Whitehorn: The ones that we did we went from - - - we did away with the $35 (thousand) and went to $37 and 40 (thousand) because we thought that, that’s where you were going, and we wanted to show what it would cost.

Councilman Wooley: Okay, you have a copy of that one that you’d like to give to us?

Chief Whitehorn: I’d like to give you the $40 (thousand).

Councilman Wooley: You can give us whatever you’d like to give us. We’ll be happy to look at it.

Councilman Shyne: Okay, lets all vote for the introduction.

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

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: (Not to be adopted prior to August 26, 2008)

The Clerk read the following:

1. Ordinance No. 90 of 2008: An ordinance amending the 2008 Capital Improvements Budget and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 91 of 2008: An ordinance amending the 2008 Budget for the Airports Enterprise Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 92 of 2008: An ordinance creating and establishing the intersection of Peach Street and Peach Tree Circle as a yield intersection and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

4. Ordinance No. 93 of 2008: An ordinance creating and establishing the intersection of Avocado Drive and Willie Mays Street as a stop intersection and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

5. Ordinance No. 94 of 2008: An ordinance enacting Section 42-3 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances relative to licenses permits and business regulations and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

6. Ordinance No. 95 of 2008: An ordinance amending the 2008 General Fund Budget and otherwise providing respect thereto. (F/Shyne)

7. Ordinance No. 96 of 2008: An ordinance amending the 2008 Community Development Special Revenue Fund and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (F/Shyne)

8. Ordinance No. 97 of 2008: An ordinance amending Chapter 42 of the Code of Ordinances relative to itinerate vendors and to otherwise providing with respect thereto. (E/Webb)

9. Ordinance No. 98 of 2008: An ordinance making certain findings with respect to the issuance of the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds on behalf of the City of Shreveport of not to exceed Ten Million and No/100 Dollars ($10,000,000) (Shreveport Airport System Project) Series 2008A-AMT subject and not to exceed Eighteen Million Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars. ($18,500,000) (Shreveport Airport System PFC Project) Series 2008B-AMT subject to refund certain existing indebtedness of the airport system, funding a debt service reserve fund, if necessary, funding fees, if any, related to the termination of an existing swap agreement associated with prior bonds if determined to be appropriate and feasable, paying the costs of issuance of the bonds, approving the forms of and authorizing the distribution, execution and delivery of the preliminary, if any and final official statements; approving the form of the trust indenture, authorizing the execution and delivery of the loan agreement, a bond purchase agreement and other documents, certificates or contracts required in connection therewith; and authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk of the City to do all things necessary to effectuate this ordinance

10. Ordinance No. 99 of 2008: An Ordinance Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to dispose of surplus real property and otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Long to introduce Ordinance No(s). 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, and 99 of 2008 to lay over until August 26, 2008 meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

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

The Clerk read the following:

1. Ordinance No. 47 of 2008: An ordinance amending and reenacting Section 10-190 of the Code of Ordinances relative to drinking in public and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester) (Postponed July 22, 2008)

Having passed first reading on May 13, 2008 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 Long. The Clerk read the following:

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 47 of 2008.

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 47 of 2008

Delete Sec. 10-190(a) and substitute the following:

Sec. 10-190.  Drinking in public generally; exceptions.

(a)Except as provided herein, it shall be unlawful to consume alcoholic beverages of high or low alcoholic content within the city limits in or on any of the following areas:

(1) on any public street or sidewalk,

(2) on any property zoned so as to permit only package alcoholic beverage sales, (3) on the parking lot of a business or on other property of a business where said property is open to the public,

(4) within the view of the public outside of an enclosed structure on any public or private property, except that this subsection shall not apply to the owner or resident of the property, or the invited guests of the owner or resident when the owner or resident is present.

(5) The provisions of this section shall not apply where said consumption is specifically authorized by ordinance, by the city council or the zoning board of appeals. The provisions of this section shall not apply to property covered by or exempted from coverage under Sections 10-191 through 10-193.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Thompson, you think you might need to send a copy of that to the Shreveport Times since it seems like we’re staying here so long until they decided to get up and leave this time. Last time, they stayed, and we left. So, you think you might need to get a copy of that to the Shreveport Times since that’s going to impact a lot of people in Councilman Lester’s district. It might not impact very many in Councilman Long’s district.

Councilman Walford: It’s going to in mine.

Councilman Shyne: It probably won’t impact very many people in my district. We have a new attitude. We turned over a new leaf this year Mr. Mayor. You know you all used to look at us - - - it’s kinda ‘those people,’ but we’ve turned over a new leaf this year. So I think Mr. Thompson, it might be good to get that out for Councilman Lester’s district and Councilman Walford’s district.

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

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to Ordinance No. 47 of 2008 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Councilman Lester: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Council for their support. Thank our legal staff, Ms. Glass particularly for doing outstanding work on the revisions. The City Attorney’s office, Cpl Collins, the Chief, and certainly Council Member Bowman for her leadership in the Public Safety Committee, giving us a hearing and having a forum on this. Again, I want to publicly thank Cpt McDaniel for bringing this idea to me. Because it’s going to help us deal with some issues our there in Area 1 as well as other areas. And I hope the Mayor, quickly I know he will, but signs this as quick as humanly possible, so that we can start dealing with this issue out there in these district. So, thank you Council Members and the Administration.

Councilman Shyne: Councilman I appreciate that, but I would like to extend an invitation for people out there who are a little bit worried to move to District F. We don’t have many of those kinds of problems and if you’re looking for a nice, safe, comfortable place to live. We’ve got a lot of good schools and good churches, and good shopping centers. I would encourage them all to move into District F.

Councilman Lester: They’re not going to leave District A, because we know that per capita, we have a lower crime rate than District F. It’s not really perceived that way, but the numbers don’t lie.

Councilman Shyne: That’s not fair.

Councilman Lester: Oh yeah, it is.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, you want to comment on that, or you going to stay out of this.

Mayor Glover: I think you have Councilman Walford.

Councilman Walford: I did have a comment if I may. I think it might be very, very beneficial if the Administration or SPD would do a press release on this as soon as you sign it. Because I have some areas where I would really like to see it enforced. I know Mr. Lester does, but in fairness to the public, I’d like to see us get the word out that, ‘Don’t do it, we’re coming.’ And both of us have got a couple of areas that have been a real problem. This will help.

Councilman Shyne: And don’t run ‘em my way, just because we don’t have any. Go run ‘em over my way, and in two or three weeks from now, I’ll be complaining.

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Council, I want to join Councilman Lester in thanking you all for stepping forward and passing this legislation and commend Councilman Bowman as Chairman of the Public Safety Committee for helping to facilitate the hearing on this matter, and all the other folks who helped to get us to this point. This is a bold step, it’s an unprecedented step, but again, something that represents the new Shreveport that we’re all trying to build and I have my pen out here ready to sign, so in the event that Lynette may be upstairs, listening and you guys want to fast track this one as we sometimes have occasion to do, then I’m prepared to sign and we will - - -

Councilman Shyne: I have my pen.

Mayor Glover: And Chairman Shyne has his pen, so we’ll be ready to put this one into affect. And I too like you Chairman Shyne at this point, that our local media folks chose to leave us before we got to this point. I hope that maybe we might be able to send Ms. Wilson or somebody else over at the time an email and some of the other folks at some of the stations may be watching because, while we’ve done and discussed a great deal here today, so far, this represents one of the best things that we’ve done today here at this Council. And it will certainly go a long way towards helping us to be in a position to further add to the safety of our neighborhood in helping to improve the quality of life and making Shreveport not only actually be the kind of place that we want it to be, but to also appear that way.

Councilman Shyne: Hold on Mr. Mayor. We have somebody on the phone that’s disturbing the Council Meeting, and I’m just appalled.

Councilwoman Bowman: Offended.

Councilman Shyne: Yeah, I’m very offended. I’m very offended that we would have a Council Member that would be so disrespectful. Councilman Long, if you need to talk on your phone, don’t disturb the Council Meeting. Tip to the door right there. I feel offended. As long as I’ve been serving on this Council, I’ve never had anybody to be so disrespectful. Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry, keep going.

Mayor Glover: Thank you Mr. Chairman. But again, we’re ready to sign this one and move forward and get it out the door and get it on the books, and let Chief Whitehorn and the rest of the men and women of Shreveport get about the business of enforcing this one and returning a sense of stability to more of our neighborhoods. So thank you.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Mayor, thank you. And I’d just like to thank the City Attorney for the effort and the hard work that she put into this. Ms. Terri Scott. I’m sorry, I missed it again. Okay, Julie. And Terri, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Sometimes I get - - - we ready Mr. Thompson.

2. Ordinance No. 69 of 2008: An ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an act of donation of City-Owned property to Urban Housing of America, Inc., Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Postponed July 22, 2008)

Having passed first reading on June 24, 2008 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 Long to postpone until the next regular meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

3. Ordinance. No. 82 of 2008: An ordinance creating and establishing a No-Parking Anytime Zone on either side of Kennie Road between Linwood Avenue, and the entrance to Carver Memorial Cemetery, and otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Wooley)

Having passed first reading on July 22, 2008 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.

Councilman Wooley: Mr. Chairman, I actually drove down the road today in the weather, which I think set up a nice scenario for me. At this time I do not think it’s in the best interest of the Carver Memorial Cemetery and all the residents that utilize that facility. Parking there is horrible. And if we were to give ‘No Parking,’ they pretty much have no where to park. So, I’d like to see us do something maybe in the future. I don’t know what at this time. But we can look at that, and so I would actually appreciate a ‘NO’ vote. Thank you.

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

4. Ordinance No. 86 of 2008: An ordinance levying a tax of twenty-seven and eighty-two one hundredths (27 and 82/100ths) mills per dollar on all property subject to Ad Valorem Taxation within the City of Shreveport for the year 2008 for the purpose of paying principal and interest on the outstanding general obligation bonds of the City of Shreveport and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on July 22, 2008 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Long. The Clerk read the following:

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 86 of 2008

Delete the ordinance as introduced and substitute the attached ordinance.

Explanation of amendment:

Rolls back the amount of the ad valorem tax millage levied to pay the principal and interest on outstanding general obligation bonds.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 86 of 2008. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Lester, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt Ordinance No. 86 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

5. Ordinance No. 87 of 2008: An ordinance levying a tax of eight and thirty-four one hundredths (8 and 34/100ths) mills per dollar on all property subject to Ad Valorem Taxation within the Bounds of Downtown Development District of the City of Shreveport as defined by Act 554 of 1978, as amended for the purposed as set forth herein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on July 22, 2008 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilmen Wooley and Long to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

6. Ordinance No. 88 of 2008: An ordinance levying various taxes totaling eighteen and twenty-five hundredths (18 and 25/100ths) mills per dollar on all property subject to Ad Valorem Taxation within the City of Shreveport for the year 2008 in the amounts and for the purposes described herein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on July 22, 2008 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Long. The Clerk read the following:

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 88 of 2008

Delete the ordinance as introduced and substitute the attached ordinance.

Explanation of amendment:

Rolls back the ad valorem tax millages which were adopted at the election on July 19, 2008.

Motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Wooley to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 88 of 2008. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Wooley to adopt Ordinance No. 88 of 2008 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

7. Ordinance No. 89 of 2008: an ordinance making certain findings with respect to the issuance by the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority on behalf of the City of Shreveport of its revenue refunding bonds (City of Shreveport/Independence Stadium Project), Series 2008 to refund certain existing indebtedness of the city which was used to finance the costs of renovating Independence Stadium, to pay fees arising from the termination of the existing SWAP Agreement related to the refunded variable rate transactions and to pay the costs of issuance of the bonds, approving the forms of and authorizing the distribution, execution and delivery of the preliminary and final official statements; approving the form of the trust indenture and authorizing the execution of delivery of the loan agreement, and other documents, certificates or contracts required in connection therewith; and authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk of the City to do all things necessary to effectuate this ordinance.

Having passed first reading on July 22, 2008 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Long . The Clerk read the following:

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 89 of 2008: An Ordinance making certain findings with respect to the issuance by the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority on behalf of the City of Shreveport of its Revenue Refunding Bonds (City of Shreveport/Independence Stadium Project) Series 2008 to refund certain existing indebtedness of the City which was used to finance the costs of renovating Independence Stadium, to pay fees arising from the termination of the existing Swap agreement related to the refunded variable rate transactions and to pay costs of issuance of the bonds, approving the forms of and authorizing the distribution, execution and delivery of the preliminary and final official statements; approving the form of the trust indenture and authorizing the execution and delivery of the loan agreement, and other documents, certificates or contracts required in connection therewith; and authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk of the City to do all things necessary to effectuate this ordinance.

Amend the Ordinance as follows:

Delete the Ordinance as introduced and substitute the attached Ordinance.

Motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 89 of 2008. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

Motion by Councilman Long, seconded by Councilman Walford to adopt Ordinance No. 89 of 2008 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

9. Ordinance No. 83 of 2008: ZONING: C-35-08 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 Hilry Huckaby, 1800’ south of North Lakeshore, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-3-E , Community Business/Extended District, to B-3-E, Community Business/Extended Use District Limited to “an office, equipment storage yard, with the addition of stockpile materials (wood chips/recyclable wood products” only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester)

Having passed first reading on July 22, 2008 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 Wooley to postpone until the next regular meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

10. Ordinance No. 84 of 2008: ZONING: C-47-08 An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the west side of Irving Place, 100’ south of Topeka Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from B-1, Buffer Business District, to R-1B, Suburban One-Family Residence District, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford)

Having passed first reading on July 22, 2008 was read by title, and on motion, ordered passed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Walford, seconded by Councilman Wooley to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

11. Ordinance No. 85 of 2008: ZONING: C-49-08 An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the west side of Youree Drive, at its intersection with Carrolton, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from SPI-3 (B-1) Commercial Corridor Overlay (Buffer Business) District, to SPI-3-E (B-1), Commercial Corridor Overlay (Buffer Business)/Extended Use District Limited to “Retail Sales” only, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/Long)

Having passed first reading on July 22, 2008 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 to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Long, Wooley, Webb, Shyne, and Bowman. 7. Nays: None.

The adopted ordinances and amendments follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 47 OF 2008

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 10-190 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO DRINKING IN PUBLIC AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

By: Councilman Lester

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened that Section 10-190(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Shreveport is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:

Sec. 10-190.  Drinking in public generally; exceptions.

(a)(1)Except as provided herein, it shall be unlawful to consume alcoholic beverages of high or low alcoholic content within the city limits on any public street or sidewalk, or on any property zoned so as to permit only package alcoholic beverage sales, or on the parking lot of a business or on other property of a business where said property is open to the public, or on any vacant lot.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “vacant lot” shall mean a lot with no building thereon.

(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply where said consumption is specifically authorized by ordinance, by the city council or the board of appeals.

* * *

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 affect without the invalid provisions, items or applications and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared severable.

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

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 47 of 2008

Delete Sec. 10-190(a) and substitute the following:

Sec. 10-190.  Drinking in public generally; exceptions.

(a)Except as provided herein, it shall be unlawful to consume alcoholic beverages of high or low alcoholic content within the city limits in or on any of the following areas:

(1) on any public street or sidewalk,

(2) on any property zoned so as to permit only package alcoholic beverage sales, (3) on the parking lot of a business or on other property of a business where said property is open to the public,

(4) within the view of the public outside of an enclosed structure on any public or private property, except that this subsection shall not apply to the owner or resident of the property, or the invited guests of the owner or resident when the owner or resident is present.

(5) The provisions of this section shall not apply where said consumption is specifically authorized by ordinance, by the city council or the zoning board of appeals. The provisions of this section shall not apply to property covered by or exempted from coverage under Sections 10-191 through 10-193.

ORDINANCE NO. 84 OF 2008

BY:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF IRVING PLACE, 100’ SOUTH OF TOPEKA STREET, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM B-1, BUFFER BUSINESS DISTRICT, TO R-1B, SUBURBAN, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT , AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of property located on the west side of Irving Place, 100’ south of Topeka Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described as Lot 1, Booker Subdivision, Shreveport, Caddo, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from B-1, Buffer Business District, to R-1B, Suburban, One-family Residence District.

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

1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with 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. 85 OF 2008

BY:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF YOUREE DRIVE, AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH CARROLTON, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, FROM SPI-3 (B-1), COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OVERLAY (BUFFER BUSINESS) DISTRICT, TO SPI-3-E (B-1), COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OVERLAY (BUFFER BUSINESS)/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT LIMITED TO “RETAIL SALES” ONLY AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO

SECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of property located on the west side of Youree Drive, at its intersection Carrollton Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, legally described as 6, 7, 8, and 9, Clingman-Broadmoor Unit 2 and Lot 1, Clingman-Broadmoor Unit 3, Shreveport, Caddo, Louisiana, be and the same is hereby changed from SPI-3 (B-1), Commercial Corridor Overlay (Buffer Business) District, to SPI-3-E (B-1), Commercial Corridor Overlay (Buffer Business)/Extended Use District limited to“ retail sales” only

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

1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with a revised site plan to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director, showing adequate parking and DOTD approved truck movements. Any significant changes or additions shall require further review and approval by the Planning Commission.

2. Dumpster shall be enclosed.

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. 86 OF 2008

AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A TAX OF TWENTY-SIX AND FIFTY-SIX ONE HUNDREDTHS (26 AND 56/100THS) MILLS PER DOLLAR ON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT FOR THE YEAR 2008 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that:

An ad valorem tax of Twenty-six and Fifty-six One Hundredths (26 and 56/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2008, for the purpose of paying the principal and interest on the outstanding general obligation bonds of the City of Shreveport, and creating a reasonable reserve for the payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due and payable, and this shall be full authority to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish to extend said tax on the assessment rolls of the City of Shreveport for the year 2008.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance, Ex Officio Tax Collector of the City of Shreveport, be and she is hereby empowered, authorized, and directed to cause said taxes, as herein above set forth, to be spread upon the tax roll of the City of Shreveport for the year 2008, to collect said ad valorem taxes for and on behalf of said City, according to law, and to place the same to the credit of the funds described herein above as authorized by law. The taxes herein levied shall become a permanent lien and privilege on all property subject to taxation as herein set forth, and the collection thereof shall be enforceable in the manner provided by law.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council shall provide a certified copy of this ordinance to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish immediately after its final passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.

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

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

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 86 of 2008

Delete the ordinance as introduced and substitute the attached ordinance.

Explanation of amendment:

Rolls back the amount of the ad valorem tax millage levied to pay the principal and interest on outstanding general obligation bonds.

ORDINANCE NO. 87 OF 2008

AN ORDINANCE LEVYING A TAX OF EIGHT AND THIRTY-FOUR ONE HUNDREDTHS (8 AND 34/100THS) MILLS PER DOLLAR ON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXATION WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AS DEFINED BY ACT 554 OF 1978, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSES AS SET FORTH HEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that an ad valorem tax of Eight and Thirty-four One Hundredths (8 and 34/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the bounds of the Downtown Development District, as defined by Act 554 of 1978, as amended, for the year 2008, and to be expended by the Downtown Development Authority for administration, operational expenses, capital improvements, project expenses or the retirement of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, all in accordance with the results of a special election held November 5, 2002, and this shall be full authority to the Tax Assessors of Caddo Parish and Bossier Parish to extend said tax on the assessment rolls of the City of Shreveport for the year 2008.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance, Ex Officio Tax Collector of the City of Shreveport, be and she is hereby empowered, authorized, and directed to cause said taxes, as herein above set forth, to be spread upon the tax roll of the City of Shreveport for the year 2008, to collect said ad valorem taxes for and on behalf of said City, according to law, and to place the same to the credit of the funds described herein above as provided for and authorized by the special election held on November 5, 2002. The taxes herein levied shall become a permanent lien and privilege on all property subject to taxation as herein set forth, and the collection thereof shall be enforceable in the manner provided by law.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council shall provide a certified copy of this ordinance to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish immediately after its final passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance and 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. 88 OF 2008

AN ORDINANCE LEVYING VARIOUS TAXES TOTALING SEVENTEEN AND NINETY-EIGHT ONE HUNDREDTHS (17 AND 98/100THS) MILLS PER DOLLAR ON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT FOR THE YEAR 2008 IN THE AMOUNTS AND FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due and legal session convened, that an ad valorem tax of Ten and Forty-nine One Hundredths (10 and 49/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2008; for the purpose of general operating expenses of the General Fund.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of Eighty-five One Hundredths (85/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2008; for the purpose of operating and supplying recreational facilities and appurtenances and maintaining the same, title to which shall be in the public. Said amount has been rolled back from the Eighty-nine One Hundredths mills approved in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 2008.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Fifty One Hundredths (1 and 50/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2008; for the purpose of providing revenues sufficient to enable the City of Shreveport to provide a three-platoon system in the Police Department, now in effect in the City of Shreveport in accordance with Act 323 of the Legislature of Louisiana for the year 1936.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Fourteen One Hundredths (1 and 14/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2008; for the purpose of improving, repairing, and maintaining the streets of the City of Shreveport, title to which shall be in the public. Said amount has been rolled back from the One and Nineteen One Hundredths (1 and 19/100ths) mills approved in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 2008.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Fourteen One Hundredths (1 and 14/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2008; for the purpose of continuing the salary and wage schedule of City employees. Said amount has been rolled back from the One and Nineteen One Hundredths (1 and 19/100ths) mills approved in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 2008.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Fourteen One Hundredths (1 and 14/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2008; for the purpose of police and fire personnel and allowance for uniforms and equipment for said departments. Said amount has been rolled back from the One and Nineteen One Hundredths (1 and 19/100ths) mills approved in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 2008.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that an ad valorem tax of One and Seventy-two One Hundredths (1 and 72/100ths) mills per dollar of assessed valuation be and the same is hereby levied on all property subject to ad valorem taxation within the City of Shreveport, for the year 2008; for the purpose of providing funds for the City's portion of pensions, employee life insurance and hospitalization plan for City employees. Said amount has been rolled back from the One and Eighty One Hundredths (1 and 80/100ths) mills approved in accordance with the results of a special election held July 19, 2008.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be full authority to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish to extend said taxes on the assessment rolls of the City of Shreveport for the year 2008.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance, Ex Officio Tax Collector of the City of Shreveport, be and she is hereby empowered, authorized, and directed to cause said taxes, as herein above set forth, to be spread upon the tax roll of the City of Shreveport for the year 2008, to collect said ad valorem taxes for and on behalf of said City, according to law, and to place the same to the credit of the funds described herein above as authorized by law. The taxes herein levied shall become a permanent lien and privilege on all property subject to taxation as herein set forth, and the collection thereof shall be enforceable in the manner provided by law.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council shall provide a certified copy of this ordinance to the Tax Assessor of Caddo Parish and the Tax Assessor of Bossier Parish immediately after its final passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.

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

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 88 of 2008

Delete the ordinance as introduced and substitute the attached ordinance.

Explanation of amendment:

Rolls back the ad valorem tax millages which were adopted at the election on July 19, 2008.

ORDINANCE NO. 89 OF 2008

AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE BY THE LOUISIANA LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT OF ITS REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (CITY OF SHREVEPORT/INDEPENDENCE STADIUM PROJECT) SERIES 2008 TO REFUND CERTAIN EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY WHICH WAS USED TO FINANCE THE COSTS OF RENOVATING INDEPENDENCE STADIUM, TO PAY FEES ARISING FROM THE TERMINATION OF THE EXISTING SWAP AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE REFUNDED VARIABLE RATE TRANSACTIONS AND TO PAY COSTS OF ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, APPROVING THE FORMS OF AND AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION, EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS; APPROVING THE FORM OF THE TRUST INDENTURE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, CERTIFICATES OR CONTRACTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CLERK OF THE CITY TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THIS ORDINANCE.

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority (the "Authority") is a political subdivision of the State of Louisiana established for public purposes including the issuance of bonds and refunding bonds pursuant to Chapter 10-D of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended (La. R.S. 33:4548.1 through 4548.16) (the “Act”) and Chapter 14A of Title 39 (the "Refunding Act"); and

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, a municipality and political subdivision organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana (the “City” or “Governing Authority”) is a participating political subdivision and member of the Authority; and

WHEREAS, the Authority previously issued its Revenue Bonds as Series 2000 ($25,000,000) and Series 2000A ($5,000,000) (the “Prior Bonds”) for the purpose of financing renovations and repairs to Independence Stadium located within the City (the “Stadium”); and

WHEREAS, the repairs and renovations to the Stadium have been completed and the stadium is presently operating and generating revenue, however, the Prior Bonds have experienced an increase in interest rates which impact the profitability of the Stadium; and

WHEREAS, the City has requested that the Authority issue its revenue refunding bonds to refund the Prior Bonds and to provide funding for termination payments (the “Termination Payments”) under the existing swap agreement related to the Prior Bonds, and pay costs of issuance related thereto (collectively the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Act, the Refunding Act and other constitutional and statutory authority empowers the Authority to issue revenue refunding bonds to provide funds to the beneficiary thereof to allow it to refinance, including but not limited to refunding bonds previously issued for the construction and acquisition of public infrastructure, economic development projects and public works of all types including public facilities, including the Stadium; and

WHEREAS, the City is authorized to borrow money repayable from the income and revenues as well as other lawfully available funds derived by the City from the operation of the Stadium to finance the refunding of the Prior Bonds; and

WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued in accordance with the Act and the Refunding Act; and

WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued pursuant to a Trust Indenture dated as of August 15, 2008 (the "Indenture") by and between the Authority and Regions Bank, as Trustee (the "Trustee"); and

WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the Authority to the City pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of August 15, 2008 (the "Loan Agreement") by and between the Authority and the City; and

WHEREAS, the Authority has adopted a resolution on authorizing the issuance of its Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities and Community Development Authority Revenue Refunding Bonds (City of Shreveport/Independence Stadium Project) Series 2008 (the “Bonds) pursuant to the Act and Refunding Act for the purpose of refunding the Prior Bonds; and

WHEREAS, the State Bond Commission (the “Commission”) granted its approval of the issuance of the Bonds and authorized the Authority to proceed with the financing of the Project for the City through the issuance of the Bonds and approved the execution of the Loan Agreement by the City; and

WHEREAS, in consideration of the loan by the Authority pursuant to the Loan Agreement, the City will agree to make payments of principal and interest which will be sufficient to pay or reimburse payment of the costs of issuance of the Bonds and principal of, interest and other charges relative to the Bonds; and

WHEREAS, all consents and approvals required to be given by public bodies in connection with the authorization, issuance and sale of the Bonds as authorized by the Indenture and as required by the Act have been or will be secured prior to delivery of the Bonds; and

WHEREAS, the City now desires by the adoption of this ordinance (this "Ordinance") to acknowledge and approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority and the execution and delivery of (i) the Loan Agreement and (ii) all other documents, certificates and contracts ancillary thereto and required in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby, to authorize the sale and delivery of the Bonds to Stephens Inc., Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. and Loop Capital Markets, LLC, (collectively, the “Underwriters”) in accordance with a Bond Purchase Agreement (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”) among the Authority, the City and Underwriters, to authorize the use and distribution of the Official Statement with respect to the Bonds, and to provide for the execution of all instruments, documents and certificates in connection therewith.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Shreveport, Louisiana, acting as the governing authority (the "Governing Authority") of the City, that:

ARTICLE I

Definitions, Findings and Interpretation

SECTION 1. Authorization of Bonds. For the purposes of financing the Project, the Governing Authority hereby approves and acknowledges the issuance by the Authority on behalf of the City of not to exceed $35,000,000 of its Revenue Refunding Bonds (City of Shreveport/Independence Stadium Project) Series 2008 (the “Bonds”). In connection therewith, the Governing Authority hereby authorizes the Authority to distribute the Official Statement, subject to such changes as may be approved by bond counsel to the City and Authority. The details of the Bonds and the other provisions of their issuance, security and payment shall be set forth in the Indenture, said Indenture to be substantially in the form submitted at this meeting and filed with the official minutes of the City, with such additions, omissions and changes as may be approved by bond counsel to the Authority and the City. The form of Indenture is hereby approved. The Bonds will be issued only as fully registered bonds in the denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple of $5,000 in excess thereof. The Bonds shall mature not later than 25 years from the date of issuance, and shall bear interest at a fixed rate not to exceed six percent (6%) per annum, all as provided in and subject to the terms and conditions of the Indenture.

SECTION 2. Indenture/Loan Agreement. The forms and terms of the Indenture and the Loan Agreement are hereby approved substantially as submitted to the City and filed with the official minutes of the City, all of the provisions of which are hereby made a part of this Ordinance, with such additions, omissions and the changes as may be approved by bond counsel to the Authority and the City. The City authorizes the pledge of Lawfully Available Funds (as defined in the Loan Agreement) and the execution of any documentation required to evidence such pledge and security interest.

SECTION 3. Bond Purchase Agreement. The Bonds shall be sold and purchased pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Bond Purchase Agreement. The Mayor and the Clerk of the City or any other officer of the City authorized to act by the Mayor, are hereby individually and/or collectively authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the City, to execute the Bond Purchase Agreement reflecting the City’s approval and acceptance of the terms thereof and of the sale to the Underwriters of the Bonds. The use, execution and distribution of the final Official Statement is hereby approved in a form as may be approved by bond counsel to the City and the Authority.

SECTION 4. Additional Authority. The Mayor or the Mayor’s certified representative and the Clerk of the City, individually and/or collectively are hereby authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the Authority, to do all things necessary, on the advice of bond counsel to the City and the Authority, to effectuate the sale and delivery of the Bonds and to implement this Ordinance, including the publication hereof as required by the Act and/or Refunding Act, the execution of agreements, documents or certificates necessary to issue and deliver the Bonds, including but not limited to final versions of the termination of the swap agreement and the Loan Agreement, as well as any document required in order to fully evidence the security interest granted by such Loan Agreement. Said officials are hereby further authorized and directed to approve for and on behalf of and the in the name of the City, any changes, additions or deletions in any of the documents, instruments or certificates referred to in this Ordinance, provided that all such changes, additions or deletions, if any shall be approved by bond counsel to the City and the Authority and consistent and within the authority provided in the Act and/or Refunding Act.

SECTION 5. Trustee. The Governing Authority hereby approves Regions Bank, Baton Rouge, Louisiana to serve as Trustee under the Indenture.

SECTION 6. Miscellaneous.

(a) Publication of Ordinance. A copy of this Ordinance shall be published in the minutes in accordance with Section 4.16 of the City Charter.

(b) Ordinance to Constitute Contract. In consideration of the purchase and the acceptance of the Bonds by those who shall hold the same from time to time, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be a part of the contract of the City with the holders of the Bonds and shall be deemed to be and shall constitute a contract between the City, the Authority, the Trustee and the holders from time to time of the Bonds. The provisions, covenants and agreements herein set forth to be performed by and on behalf of the City shall be for the benefit, protection and security of the holders of any and all of the Bonds.

(c) Filing of Ordinance. Upon the issuance of the bonds, a certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed and recorded as soon as possible in the Mortgage Records in the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana.

(d) Severability. In case any one or more the provisions of this Ordinance shall, for any reason, be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Ordinance and this Ordinance shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provisions had not been contained herein or therein.

(e) Governing Law. This Ordinance is a contract made under, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Louisiana applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely within such State.

Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 89 of 2008:

Delete the Ordinance as introduced and substitute the attached Ordinance.

Explanation: Inserts final information

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. 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)

2. 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)

3. Resolution No. 51 of 2007: A resolution supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Tabled May 8, 2007)

4. Ordinance No. 122 of 2006: Amending portions of Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances relative to traffic and vehicles and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester) (Tabled September 11, 2007)

5. Ordinance No. 32 of 2008: An ordinance to amend and reenact portions of Division 3 of Article V of Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances relative to Retained Risk and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Tabled April 22, 2008)

6. Ordinance No. 24 of 2008: Amending Chapter 42 of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances to add Article XI relative to operation of a rendering plant or transfer center within the City of Shreveport and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Tabled May 13, 2008)

7. Ordinance No. 40 of 2008: Amending and reenacting Section 26-211 of the Code of Ordinances relative to City Contracts, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Walford) (Tabled May 27, 2008)

8. Ordinance No. 58 of 2008: ZONING - C-25-08: Amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, the City of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the west side of N. Market, 3,322 feet north of Martin Luther King Drive, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, from R-1D, Urban, One-Family Residence District to B-1, Buffer Business District and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (A/Lester) (Tabled July 8, 2008)

9. PROPERTY STANDARDS APPEALS:

HBO0700145 – 426 Woodrow, Shreveport, LA (F/Shyne) Mr. Adrian Gerard Gallion, 124 Carroll Street, Shreveport, LA 71105 (C/Long) (Postponed February 25, 2008 until August 25, 2008)

HBO0700081 – 1062 Dalzell Street, Shreveport, LA (B/Walford) Mr. Stanley W. Burke, III, 8848 Youree Drive, Shreveport, LA 71115 (D/Wooley)(Postponed July21, 2008 until September 8, 2008)

HBO0700137 – 1919 Walnut Street, Shreveport, LA (A/Lester); Ms. Ethel J. Reed, 4745 McDaniel Drive, Shreveport, LA 71109 (F/Shyne) (Postponed February 25, 2008 until August 25, 2008)

PSD0700065 - 2513 Dupont Street, Shreveport, LA (B/Walford); Mr. David Bates, 2509 Dupont Street, Shreveport, La 71103 (B/Walford) (Postponed July 7, 2008 until September 22, 2008)

PSD0700243 - 129 Stoner Ave, Shreveport, LA (B/Walford); Mr. Raul Perez, Jr. 226 Cattail Trail, Benton, LA 71006 )(Postponed May 12, 2008 until August 11, 2008) DECISION RENDERED August 11, 2008

PSD0700170 – 610 Terrell Drive (D/Wooley); Mr. Bobby Player, 3110 Logan Street, Shreveport, LA 71103 (G/Bowman) (Postponed June 23, 2008 until August 11, 2008) DECISION RENDERED August 11, 2008

PSD0700347 – 4129 Theo Street/4709 Norton (F/Shyne): Mr. Johnny Myles, 1041 Sheridan Street, Shreveport, La 71104 (B/Walford) (Postponed May 12, 2008 until November 10, 2008)

PSD0700058: 557 Egan Street, Shreveport, LA (B/Walford) Mr. Daniel Markulus, 853 Place, Shreveport, LA (B/Walford) (Postponed June 23, 2008 until September 22, 2008)

PSD0700214: 2732 Logan Street. Shreveport, LA (G/Bowman) Willie Roberson, 6915 Quilen Rd, Shreveport, LA (E/Webb) (Postponed July 7, 2008 until September 22, 2008)

PSD0700431: 2827 Summer Grove, Shreveport, LA (E/Webb) Rickey Herren, 1683 Kuehler Ave, New Braunfels, TX 78130 (Postponed June 9, 2008 until September 8, 2008)

PSD0800139: 1837 Looney, Shreveport, LA (A/Lester) Mr. Cleon R. Turney, 101 Silver Oak Drive, Round Rock, TX 79664 (Postponed July21, 2008 until Sept 22, 2008)

PSD0700131: 1530 Arlington, Good Samaritan Funeral Home, Inc., Shreveport, La (A/Lester) Mr. Winnifred Jackson, 2200 Laurel St, Shreveport, La (A/Lester) (Tabled June 9, 2008)

NEW BUSINESS

ABO APPEAL

Bradden Bullock, 9005 Walfker Road, Shreveport, LA 71118 (E/Webb) Applebee’s Grill and Bar, 9880 Mansfield Road, Shreveport, LA 71118 (E/Webb) DECISION RENDERED August 11, 2008

PROPERTY STANDARDS APPEAL

PSD0800194: 2031 Ice Cream St., Shreveport, LA 71107 (A/Lester) Mr. Rosevelt Hicks, Jr., 1704 Bonnie Street, Shreveport, LA 71107 (A/Lester) DECISION RENDERED August 11, 2008

REPORTS FROM OFFICERS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES

CLERK’S REPORT

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 8:27 p.m.

_____________________________________

//s// Joe, Shyne, Chairman

_____________________________________

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