CC 382710 21 14

Council Proceedings of the City of Shreveport, LouisianaOctober 14, 2014

The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana was called to order by Chairman Joe Shyne at 3:10 p.m., Tuesday, October 14, 2014, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street).

Invocation was given by Councilman Corbin.The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Oliver Jenkins.

On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Rose Wilson-McCulloch, Jeff Everson, Michael Corbin, Oliver Jenkins, Ron Webb (Arrived at 3:22 p.m.), Joe Shyne, and Sam Jenkins. 7. Absent: None.

Motion by Councilman Corbin, seconded by Councilman O. Jenkins to approve the minutes of the Administrative Conference, Monday, September 22, 2014 and Council Meeting, Tuesday, September 23, 2014. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 6. Nays: None. Out of theChamber: Councilman Webb. 1. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Councilman Shyne: Okay at this point, I’m going to take a little executive privilege, and I’m going to ask - - - where is Mr. Thompson? Tell him we’re waiting on him. I did not think thatthis would come so soon. We have a resolution for the Bush family. Bill Bush served this community as a City Councilman in a very, very distinguished way. Bill was one of Shreveport’s best and brightest. The good Lord called Bill home a few days ago, and I know what he’s doing right now. I know he’s probably leading the band up in the heaven for the good Lord, and we just want to recognize Bill. Bill would always go down in the history of the City of Shreveport and Bill is what about a good American. Bill was an example of a good and great American and I believe he was a graduate of Byrd High School. Bill loved Byrd High School, Bill loved Shreveport. And if you all would come up to the podium, I’ll present you with the resolution and Mr. Thompson will read it for us please.

The Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 180 OF 2014A RESOLUTION TO COMMEMORATE THE LIFE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF WILLIAM HARDY “BILL” BUSH A NATIVE OF SHREVEPORT AND FORMER SHREVEPORT CITY COUNCILMAN, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO. BY: COUNCILMAN JOE SHYNE

WHEREAS, William Hardy “Bill” Bush, a past two-term Shreveport City Councilman andpopular area musician, died Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at the age of 70; and

WHEREAS, Bill Bush was elected to represent Council District D in 1982 and was unopposed in 1986; and WHEREAS, Bill Bush worked hard for his district which included some of the wealthiest and poorest citizens. He worked to pave all oil dirt streets in District D, and to construct a neighborhood center at A. B. Palmer Park; and

WHEREAS, Bill Bush was a champion for his district and for the entire city. He was an effective legislator who listened to other elected officials and citizens, and made decisions calculated to move the entire city forward; and

WHEREAS, Bill Bush’s actions in his private life and public life demonstrated his behalf that all men are created equal and that every man and woman has a right to participate in and to receive the benefits of our governmental efforts; and

WHEREAS, Bill Bush sponsored Shreveport’s Sister City Program with Quimper, France;and

WHEREAS, in 1990 Bill Bush chose not to run for re-election for a third term, opting instead to run for Shreveport Mayor, where he placed third in a twelve candidate field ; and

WHEREAS, Bill Bush was known for his Bill Bush Combo, where he encouraged younger musicians, taking them under his wing and hiring them for gigs at his downtown nightclub, Bill Bush’s Moulin Rouge which he owned and operated for 1971 to 1990; and

WHEREAS, Bill Bush, a Byrd High School and Centenary College graduate, was involved with alumni associations, the Progressive Men’s Club, Local 116 of the American Federation of Musicians, Holy Cross Episcopal Church, the Shreveport Regional Arts Council, Downtown Shreveport Unlimited, Historical Preservation of Shreveport, the Louisiana Restaurant Association, the Shriners and the Elks; and

WHEREAS, Bill Bush, who once said his two passions music and politics were really intertwined, was making music and actively participating in civic and religious organizations to make Shreveport a better place to live at the time of his death.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due regular and legal session convened, that the Shreveport City Council commemorates the lifeand accomplishments of William Hardy “Bill” Bush, especially his successful efforts to make Shreveport a better place to live for all citizens.

Councilman Shyne: Mr. Thompson, thank you. I want to present this to Bill’s sister, daughter and grandson. God bless you. And we’re going to give them an opportunity to say a word or two and Sam I believe you’re a Byrd graduate. Jeff, I believe you’re a Byrd graduate.

Councilman Everson: Byrd and Centenary. That’s where I met Bill for the very first time. I’ll never forget it. The Centenary Alumni Association.

Councilman Shyne: And Mr. Mayor, we’re going to make you an honorary graduate of Byrd High School so you can say word or two.

Ms. Rebecca Bush: Thank you so much. Bill truly loved everybody that he ever met. He saw no color. He was just a wonderful person who volunteered for so many things and he was my personal hero. So, we thank you for this.

Ms. Jennifer Bush: And I just wanted to say we do appreciate that, because it’s a legacy and it’s an honor to have my son, to have these things in memory of him. And we’re very proud tobe his family, and I just wanted to thank Mayor Glover for the proclamation that you sent to the funeral. That was really nice of you as well. And he loved this city and he loved all of you so

thank you very much.Councilman Shyne: We want his grandson to know that his grand dad was a great man you

hear? Just carry on the legacy. Just before you all leave.Councilman S. Jenkins: I certainly did want to say so Mr. Chairman and I appreciate the

opportunity today and I’ll let you know that Bill Bush was someone when I came back to Shreveport after attending college and law school that had me to become interested in local politics. And you’re right. He was a man of the people and he was a good friend, and someone you could certainly go to and talk about any variety of subjects. He was a well versed gentleman and I last saw him I want to say a couple of months ago. My wife and I were in Chianti’s on Line Avenue. And he was there having dinner with a friend, and he asked us to sit and we sat down andwe talked for a while. I didn’t know that that would be the last time that I would see him. But overthe years, he has been someone who I have reached out to for advice on a variety of different subjects which included the local political scene and here’s a man who always had something encouraging to say, so you really have someone there to be very, very proud of. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Jennifer Bush: Just on that note when you said, he mixed politics and music, the TV Show that he did, “Dateline Shreveport”, he always wanted to be sitting at a piano, with all the people around it as he played. We always talked about that at home, but that was just kind of funny. He had a sense of humor.

Councilman Everson: Well, I just have to say you know when I returned to Shreveport very young I moved away right after college just for a couple of years. But I joined the Alumni Association when I came back, and I wasn’t working in politics, wasn’t really particularly interested in politics at that point in my life. But I do remember meeting Bill at one of those very first meetings I attended. And certainly I’d seen him perform before, I knew who he was, but meeting him was an inspiration and he really was a guy that I think probably inspired a lot of people, cause I know just in doing that, in my interactions with him, he was the kind of guy that pushed and encouraged and really wanted people to love Shreveport and wanted people to serve Shreveport and make Shreveport the best it can be. So, that’s a wonderful legacy to leave behind and we’re all so proud of him.

Mayor Glover: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Council. I just wanted to simply say to you all that it was my honor and pleasure to be able to extend the Mayoral statement on behalf of the administration. I was just simply extremely disappointed that we were not able to be there. My wife and I were out of town, but we wanted you all to know just how special we believe - - -(inaudible) at a very special level it was 24 years ago that I was elected to the City Council, had a chance to be able to meet Bill Bush after getting elected. And he took me aside and gave me the kind of advice and counsel and insight that allowed me to be able to do my job effectively, with honor, and with integrity and with the kind of balance that allowed me to be able to know that I was representing all of the interest, not just in District A, but of the city as a whole. So I want to thank you all for the gift, that was you father, your brother and your grandfather. He was a wonderful man, his legacy will carry on for years and while I appreciate the Chairman making me an honorary Byrd graduate, I have a distinction that’s even more special than that. Eight years ago, on the night of November 28, when I was given the privilege of becoming the Mayor of Shreveport, I became an honorary member of the Bill Bush Combo. And for anyone who knows me they know - - -

Councilman Shyne: What were you doing playing the drums? Or the saxophone?

Mayor Glover: Actually everybody who knows me except outside of my shower, I cannot sing. In the shower, the ceramic tile there, I have perfect pitch. Outside of that environment, I’m as flat as three day old root beer. Except for that one magic night. And Bill Bush, I’m not sure exactly what he did, or how he did it. I often tell folks, I felt like Barney from Andy Griffith, whenhe told me to just sing very lightly into the microphone, and that there was somebody behind the curtain who was actually singing for me. But it was a wonderful joyous night and lastly, I can tell you, I’m not much of a Facebook guy. People who know me know I do more Twitter than Facebooking, but I happen to be on Facebook at some point about two weeks ago, and I saw whereBill had put in that he was going to be performing at the Tiki Club, that coming Tuesday. And I said to myself, if the schedule allows, I’d rather to get a chance to get by and see and sit in. And did not know in similar fashion to what Councilman Sam Jenkins said, that it might have been the last opportunity I may have had to see him. But we know that his legacy will impact (inaudible) that I have over the rest of these politicians here. Thank you much and God Bless you.

Councilman Shyne: Alright thank y’all very much, and we will always love and cherish Bill.

Councilman Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we approve Resolution 180.

Councilmen O. Jenkins and S. Jenkins: Second.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Corbin, seconded by Councilmen O. Jenkins and S. Jenkins to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

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

Awards and recognition of distinguished guests by City Council members, not to exceed fifteen minutes.

Awards and recognition of distinguished guests by the Mayor, not to exceed fifteen minutes.

Communications of the Mayor relative to city business other than awards and recognition of distinguished guests.

Councilman Shyne: At this time, we had a ground breaking this morning for a company that we really need in Shreveport, because we are a health conscious community, I want to ask Miss. Christina.

Ms. Christina Gafford: This is Laura Zappy of Whole Foods Market. And so thank you for having us here today to say a few words. We’re very excited to break ground for a 39,000 square foot building that we plan to open around this time next year. It will bring around 140 jobs to the area, and also we encourage our local suppliers to reach out to (inaudible), that’s someone we’ve hired to actually go around the state and seek out local products and produce. An easy way to reach her is Louisianalocal@wholefoods.com and later this afternoon, we have a community meeting that we’ll do a brief overview of the company and also a little quick sneak peek of the

design of the building. And so that’s at 4:30 at the Clarion Hotel in the Magnolia Room. Councilman Shyne: And there’s a rumor going around that you all are going to employ

most of your employees from Shreveport.Ms. Gafford: That’s correct. We anticipate that almost most of the team members in the

Whole Food Store will be from the Shreveport area. Councilman Shyne: Mayor, you hear that, that’s not only a rumor, but it’s a fact now that

they will improve our ability to work here in Shreveport. So thank y’all very much. Do we have any Council Members who would like it make any comments or ask any questions? I saw Oliver out there, and I don’t know whether he was out there to spend any money or not, or whether it was just in his district. But Oliver, it was in your district, so I’m going to give you

Mayor Glover: Mr. Shyne, before you would do that I would ask that you allow Joann Wheless who is here as well to come up also. She is the local realtor who was a part of helping to (inaudible) put together. She has a staffer with her as well. I’m not sure, but I certainly want to give her a chance to come up and join this group and this gathering.

Councilman Shyne: I didn’t recognize you. I thought you were one of the Centenary Seniors out there.

Ms. Wheless: Thank you so much. We had a wonderful ground breaking this morning, and just had the opportunity to recognize all of the participants in our transaction. It has been a long time coming in more ways than one. Not just to get Whole Foods to recognize that we are a great market for them, but to put the transaction together with our partner developer Reed King Commercial Properties out of Houston. It has been a pleasure working with the city on this transaction, with Community Trust Bank to share their access. We did have some challenges, but everybody worked together to overcome those, and we really look forward to our ribbon cutting when we can actually have the store open and be able to shop those wonderful green organic foods.So, thank you to everybody who was a participant and we’re looking forward to our next benchmark with Whole Foods.

Ms. Zappy: Thank you again. It was a great welcome that we received today, and so we just wanted to thank everyone in the city for the great welcome that we received. And we’d also like to support local nonprofits in the area, so we look forward to getting to know the community better and seeing how we can help.

Councilman O. Jenkins: It was just a great, great event today. You know there were a lot of people there, and yeah, you don’t always get a lot of people at a ground breaking. So it’s a sign of good things to come. Obviously the community is encouraged, and excited about bringing Whole Foods here, so we appreciate that and certainly overture to the nonprofits, I saw it already started right after the meeting (inaudible) to meet with you directly at that point. So I appreciate that overture, and all you’re about in terms of a corporate society in assisting local community. So I appreciate that.

Councilman Shyne: Thank y’all very much.Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman? Ladies before you all leave, I just wanted to share with you

that I and Oliver and some others of us have been waiting a very long time for the opportunity to don one of these for this ground breaking and in fact, Oliver reminded me that one of the first pieces of advice that I passed along to him when he got elected to the City Council, is called the Michael Dukakis Rule, and it goes back to the 1988 Presidential Campaign, when Michael Dukakis rode a tank an put on one of the silliest looking hats that you could every wear as a presidential candidate. So I told him as best you can avoid hats by all means if possible, but today

he and I both put on our Whole Foods hat and we were glad to don them and be a part of the ground breaking. So thank you all for giving us a chance to be able to answer yes to whether or notShreveport is a Whole Foods city. Thank you, God bless you.

Councilman Shyne: And Dale I have a Whole Foods cap for you too, hear? Thank you all very much for coming down. Okay, I believe at this point, let’s go back into the regular agenda Mr.Chairman and we will move from here. Let’s go with the Circle K situation, and then we will move into the overview of the - - - since we have a nice group here, we will move into the overview of the budget.

Councilman O. Jenkins: Okay. The only question I have is that at one point, we were goingto do the budget first. But I’m happy to take up the Circle K. I’ll make that motion.

Councilman Shyne: Well, hold on then. Are you ready for the overview?Mr. Sibley: We’re fine either way.Councilman Shyne: You all are fine? Well, let’s go with the overview then.Councilman Everson: Is there some reason to do the - - - do we need to do the Public

Hearings?Mr. Thompson: We asked - - - we sent an email to Council Members asking that early in

the meeting if we could do Resolutions 160, 183 and 184; and Ordinances 99, 100 and 101, because the City Attorney said that they needed the signature of the Chairman and the Mayor todayon those. And it takes some time to prepare those sheets. So we were asking that it would be brought up before the Circle K hearing.

Councilman Shyne: Well, that’s good.Mr. Thompson: But we cannot do 83 until after the Public Hearing, because you have to do

the Public Hearing on 83 before you can actually adopt it. So we were asking that the Resolutions 160 through and 101 ordinances and the Circle K matter would be brought up after the Public Hearings?

Councilman Shyne: So you’re saying it’s best to do the Public Hearings now?Mr. Thompson: Well, we can do the overview now and go through the regular agenda and

then do the Public Hearings which will not take long.Councilman Shyne: That’s what I was hoping because the overview shouldn’t take but

what five or six minutes?Ms. Fields: I can adhere to your time frame.Councilman Shyne: Well let’s say - - - let’s see if we can do it in about six minutes.Ms. Fields: Okay.Mr. Sibley: She can talk fast.Councilman Shyne: I know she can.Mr. Sibley: We can’t always listen fast though.Councilman Shyne: Do we have any Mayoral candidates here?Mr. Thompson: Yeah, there are some Mr. Chairman.Councilman Shyne: Why don’t you all come up front, because this is what you’re going to

be dealing with for the next year. I’m sorry, how about City Council candidates? I guess you all heard what Oliver said, huh?

Councilman O. Jenkins: I didn’t say anything (inaudible)Councilman Shyne: Yeah, Oliver said City Council candidates too busy campaigning, and

you know he and Mike won their seats.

Ms. Fields: Council before you is the budget for the City of Shreveport for 2015. The totalis $832 (million) which includes $400,081,000 operating funds, and $351,000,000 in capital projects. The total revenue for the General fund and I’ll walk you through the General Fund budgetfirst. Total revenue is increased by $9,000,000 which is 4.7% due to sales tax increases. And it also reflects an increase transfer from the Riverfront Fund as well as the Streets Special Revenue Fund that I will detail shortly. If you recall in 2014, the Council approved $4.56 (million) to be transferred to the Streets Special Revenue Fund due to the positive performance of sales taxes. What’s proposed in the 2015 budget is to have that amount of money transferred in 2015 in lieu of this current year. Total expenditures are projected at $10.5 (million). It projects stable expenditures for overall costs and services, which includes longevity increases for our police and fire, increases in Civil Service retirement, as well as an increase in healthcare of 10% and there are raises for the employees. This is just a snapshot of the allocation of revenue and expenditures. (Inaudible) available funds project the fund balance at the end of 2015 at $10,000,000 and in 2013,we had an actual audit of $4.1 (million) as the result of our fund balance for the General Fund, and in 2014, we’re projecting that our revenue to be higher than what was budgeted by $1.9 (million) again due to sales taxes which is also offset by moving the $4.56 (million) from Streets to 2015 transfer rather than 2014 transfer. These are the largest departments within the General Fund and it comprises of 89% of the total General Fund budget. The total increases here equal $12.7 (million) and overall the expenditures again are unchanged, except for retirement and insurance. (Inaudible) government it accounts for the merit raises for employees as well as healthcare increases and fund balance which is projected to be up $3.4 (million). The transfers from out of general government for MPC, SPORTRAN, GOLF, etc. is unchanged. These are the remaining General Fund Departments which account for $24,000,000 of the general fund budget. These total changes is a $1.2 (million) increase and again, mostly due to healthcare. Due to the timing in the change in the healthcare increase for the healthcare board which reflected in the budget right now is a 15% increase , and the board came back and approved a 10% instead, so that will improve by what we’re projecting about right under $900,000. That number will be offset by the increase in the pension contribution that was approved by the Council of just over $900,000. So, those two amounts will offset each other, which will roughly have the ending fund balance unchanged. In the Internal Service Fund, Retained Risk Revenue is $10,000,000 which is the same as 2014. Expenditures, $9,000,000 same as 2014 also. And our Special Revenue funds, I’ll start with the Riverfront Development fund. The 2015 budget is projected down by $2.5 (million) and this is mainly due to reduced gaming revenues, which is offset by a reduced fund balance. Total gaming revenues year to date is about $645,000 and we’re projecting the total rent and gaming revenue for 2015 to be about $11.1 (million) This fund also includes Civic Appropriations of $2.2 (million) and other contributions to other public entities of $1.000,000. We’re projecting the ending fund balance of about -$3.9 (million). This was the organizations that are budgeted to come from the Riverfront fund, and again, this amount totals to $3.2 (million). On to the Streets Special Revenue Fund, the budget is $14.7 (million). It includes about $500,000 of an increase in the projected franchise fee due to higher collections within the past couple of years. There is a projected $3.5 (million) that accounts for the proposed debt service for street improvements. That is on the agenda. And it also accounts for a transfer to General Government for merit raises for all employees. The ending fund balance at the conclusion of these expenses is $1.7 (million). And thisis a recap of the other special revenue funds. Community Development increased by 9.6%. The subsidy to MPC is unchanged. The reduction is reflected to - - - in professional services, the UDC

was fully funded in 2014. For the enterprise funds, Water and Sewer has conservative revenue forecasts as well as an estimate of efficiencies in expenses. The subsidy to SPORTRAN is unchanged. Convention Center subsidy is decreased by $6,000. Golf projects an increase in fund balance as well as in Downtown Parking. The Hotel debt service is reduced by 36% in this year due to the remarketings and the fund balance is projected at -$4,000,000. The Hilton Hotel shares is an additional amount of $2,000,000 that is budgeted within the hotel. In the Hotel is from the revenues and expenditures projections, they’re expected to meet not only their operations, but also their capital replacement expenses. In the Debt Service Reserve Fund revenues of $38.5 (million) which is up about $1,000,000 from 2013 actual, and expenditures of $36.2 (million). This amount in expenditures is projected up by 7% to account for debt service for the most recently sold GOB bonds. In the Capital Improvements Budget, includes $351,000,000 of improvements. This will increase by about $107,000,000 due to 2014 GOB bonds and that will be funds within those three propositions that were approved by the voters. And this just recaps the budget meetings that again are open to the public, and within these meetings, we’ll cover specifically each department and talkabout the details of what is in each budget. And we are projected to have the final approval of the budget December 9th and that will follow a public hearing on November 11th during the regular Council Meeting. And that will conclude the overview.

Councilman Shyne: Thank you very much. I will not entertain any questions at this point, but I would like to invite any of the Mayoral candidates or City Council candidates or anybody from the public who would have some questions to be a part of our budget meetings. And you can see how they were listed, if you didn’t get a chance to write ‘em down real quick, we’ll make sure that you get a copy from the Clerk of Council or from Mr. Sibley there who is our CAO. So at thattime, if you all would come back to those meetings, we’ll be glad to entertain any questions that you have, and I hope we’ll be in a position to answer.

Councilman O. Jenkins: By the way are those preliminary already on the website?Ms. Fields: The current budget as proposed is.Councilman O. Jenkins: Okay. For reference.Mayor Glover: And the meeting schedule as well is on the website.Councilman Shyne: But in case your computer might be broken - - -Councilman O. Jenkins: I’ll lend you my IPAD if you need it.Mr. Sibley: We’ll also have the media releases Mr. Chairman in terms of the meetings.Councilman Shyne: Thank you, thank you so much. I’m an old school teacher and Ollie,

you know how it is, you want to make sure that your students have exactly what they need. Alright.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I believe the reports have been submitted, I don’t know if anybody has any Property Standards questions.

ReportsProperty Standards Report (Res. 7 of 2003)Revenue Collection Plan & Implementation Report (Res. No.114 of 2009)Surety Bond Forfeitures Report (Res 238 of 2010)Master Plan Committee Report (Res. No. 132 of 2012)

Mr. Thompson: We can go into the Public Hearings?Mr. Sibley: We’re ready.

Councilman Shyne: Okay.

Public Hearings:

Mr. Sibley: Again, Mr. Chairman, we would ask that the Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 98 be postponed. This is the one on Lake Street closing, but we do understand that a representative from the Holiday Inn Downtown is here. Would like to make some comments just for the general information of the Council, even though that public hearing, we’re asking that it be rescheduled.

Councilman Shyne: Okay.Mr. Sibley: Robert, is he - - -? I know he left some information Mr. Chairman, I think on

all the Council Members’ stand.Councilman Everson: I think he realized this would be kind of a long meeting, and so he

may come back next time, but he did leave the Council Members some information.Mr. Sibley: And we would simply ask that that matter be postponed until the next Council

Meeting.Mr. Thompson: So, it is postponed until the next Council Meeting?Mr. Sibley: Yes sir.

1. Ordinance No. 98 of 2014: A resolution authorizing the city to close and restrict vehicularaccess to Lake Street from Commerce Street to Sci-Port Center, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Motion by Councilman Corbin, seconded by Councilman Everson to postpone the Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 98 of 2014 until the next regular meeting.

Councilman Shyne: Julie, are we in our legal boundaries to postpone this?Ms. Glass: Yes, I was just saying to Mr. Thompson, I don’t think it’s a required public

hearing, I think it’s more of the Council wanting to get the input. So, he asked me if it needed to be re-advertised. And I said more because it in order to get the word out rather than a legal requirement.Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

The Clerk read the following:

2. Ordinance No. 103 of 2014: ANNEXATION – TAG NO. 14-04: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A 32.14-acre tract of land, located west of Norris Ferry Road, and south of Southern Loop located in Section 29 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Corbin)

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

Mr. Malcolm Stadtlander: Good afternoon Council Members. Tag No. 14-04 concerns a 32.14 acre tract of land in Section 29, T16N-R13W, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, known as the Norris Ferry Crossing Subdivision Unit Nos. 5-9, that is contiguous to the City limits of Shreveport and that lies south, east, and west of Norris Ferry Crossing Subdivision Unit Nos. 1-4, and adjacent to the existing St. Charles Place Subdivision. The developer plans to expand the existing Norris Ferry Crossing Development with the addition of approximately 149 houses, having an estimated average value of $210,000 per unit. Installation of all water and sewer lines, storm drains, and private streets will be the responsibility of the developer. A public notice ran on May 1, 2014, and there were no objections formally filed by the public concerning this annexation. All of the north and east sides and most of the south and west sides of the proposed annexation are contiguous to the existing City limits. The City received petitions by more than the required percentage in number of resident property owners and registered voters requesting this annexation.

Councilman Corbin: Malcolm, the majority of these lots already have holds on ‘em don’t they?

Mr. Stadtlander: Yes, yes. That’s one of the reasons why we had to get registered voters to sign petitions. The area you can see right here, Councilman Corbin, this is now mostly vacant, but they are working it. They’re putting in streets, but I don’t think any building has started in that area yet. But all the other lots are developed for the most part.

Councilman Corbin: I knew the south side was.Councilman O. Jenkins: By the way that average cost is including their home on there?Mr. Stadtlander: Yes.Councilman Shyne: Okay, now let me ask the public. Do we have anyone here to speak in

favor? Do we have anyone wish to speak in opposition? Does the administration have any more?Mr. Sibley: Mr. Chairman, we have nothing further in terms of presentation.Councilman Shyne: Okay then this public hearing is now closed.

The Clerk read the following:

3. Ordinance No. 104 of 2014: ANNEXATION – TAG NO. 14-05: Enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a 14.4-acre tract of land, located at 3142 Bert Kouns Industrial Loop in Section 5 (T16N-R14W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Webb)

Mr. Sibley: Mr. Stadtlander will present on behalf of the Administration.Councilman Shyne: Okay, this public hearing is now open.Mr. Stadtlander: Alright. Tag No. 14-05 concerns a 14.4 acre tract of land in Section 5,

T16N-R14W, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, known as Lots 1 & 2 of the L.E. Walker Subdivision, UnitNo. 5, that is contiguous to the City limits of Shreveport and that lies between Bert Kouns Industrial Loop and Cedar Creek Drive, and adjacent to the existing Cinnamon Square Townhomes. Trinity Baptist Church of Shreveport, Inc. has requested this annexation to utilize theCity’s water and sewer systems, in order that the property may be developed. There is a proposal to use this property for a Charter School. Should this school be constructed, the potential assessed value of the fully developed property could be in excess of 1.5 million dollars. A public notice ranon July 24, 2014, and there were no objections formally filed by the public concerning this annexation. All of the north, west, and south sides of the proposed annexation are contiguous to

the existing City limits. The City received a petition by Trinity Baptist Church of Shreveport, Inc., as the property owner requesting this annexation. And I have another plat that may be of interest toyou showing this proposed annexation and all of the colored area in and around this area is inside the city limits.

Mr. Thompson: Is that the end of your presentation?Mr. Stadtlander: Um hmm. That’s the end.Councilman Shyne: Okay, do we have any questions from any of the Council Members?

If not do we have any concerns from the public? Do we have anyone here to speak in favor of the annexation ordinance?

Mr. Bob Dunston: (National Heritage Academies) I will be ultimately purchasing the property from Trinity Baptist Church and will be the builder and operator of the school. I did bring along a copy of the site plans if you’re interested in looking at them to see how that would look on that piece of property. I have copies for everyone if you’d like to see ‘em. Mr. Chairman, the primary reason to annex the property is to gain access to the water and sewer rights. Currently water and sewer both run across the front of the property along Bert Kouns, as well as there is another sewer leg that runs up to Lester and Property boundary as well. And so that would allow us to develop the property and the site plan you have in front of you would be for the construction of a brand new K-8 elementary school.

Councilman O. Jenkins: Just a quick question if I may Mr. Chairman? So, what is your intended tax status? It’s not going to be a 501(c)3?

Mr. Dunston: No, we are a privately owned company. We pay taxes like every other business in the city. We do though for clarification, (inaudible) because a lot of people don’t understand what a chartered public school is. It’s a public school in every sense. We do not - - - it’s tuition free, and it really is a first come, first serve basis. So once open enrollment starts for the school, they literally take names on the list and that’s how the children are seated so to speak. So like I said, there is no tuition. We have - - - we’ve been in business almost 20 years, I think since ’95, so 19 years. This year we opened our 80th school in the United States. We currently serve 54,300 and some change students across those nine states. And we’ve been very successful. At this point, I think right now, we have a waiting list of over 22,000 students. So, we’re very excited to build a new school in Shreveport. We already have schools, we opened two schools in Louisiana this year. One in Baker as well as one in Lafayette. And we’ve had a school operating now I think for I think in its third year in East Baton Rouge, just south of the airport. Looking forward to constructing a school here in Shreveport and opening it and (inaudible).

Councilman Webb: Mr. Chairman? Are you the gentleman I spoke to on the phone?Mr. Dunston: I am.Councilman Webb: What I wanted to talk to you about the entry, and the exits so. I’m

looking at where you say is going to be a turn lane. How many feet is that?Mr. Dunston: Well, chances are - - - well, all of it will be determined by the Department of

Transportation. But generally coming off a 55mph road like that, my guess is it’s going to be somewhere in the 250-300 range including the (inaudible). And that’s just a (inaudible) turn lane that comes in from the east if you would.

Councilman Webb: Okay, so is it going to be one way in and one way out?Mr. Dunston: Yes, the way it’s designed right now, it’s a couple of things that are

significantly different than most schools that I would imagine that everybody is familiar with here. Because we do not provide bussing, we take care of the parking and the traffic on site if you

would. So, what you’re looking at in front of you what is highlighted if you would, in darker gray is a parking lot and what we figure is the queuing lanes. So from a parking standpoint, it parks about 166 is what is showing on here. On top of that is almost three-quarters, well actually more than three-quarters of a mile of queuing lanes (inaudible) which will stack roughly another 160 cars. So the idea to keep the traffic moving along Bert Kouns freely (inaudible) that position no matter where we go, because we always have a lot of traffic. It’s pretty common place for us to improve the right turn lanes (inaudible), but you also notice too from a safety standpoint, because it’s a (inaudible), there’s two lanes coming into this school, there’s a full center turn lane that’s running all the way down Bert Kouns, the entire section so that’s really very, very nice. So what really is important though is that there is an island in between the two roads coming in. The island allows people to not fight for position and play chicken on who gets the lane. So, the cars are allowed to free flow into the site and enter into roughly 4,000, a little over 4,000 feet of queuing lane, and they’re going to the parking spaces. So (inaudible) design behind that is to get the cars off the road. Because you don’t want to stack the cars especially on a road like Bert Kouns. So that’s what it’s designed to do. There also other features inside the site plan to take care of movingcars through. Especially during what is typically the (inaudible) but the time when everything usedis pickup in the afternoon. Drop off no matter where we’re at, generally seems to be pretty smooth. Cars just don’t stack up like they would. The end of the day, I think people like to not read the paper anymore, but they like to catch up on their email and texts so, they park often. And because we’re a K-8, we also have young children and families in the 1-3 grade range tend to like to walk in and pick up their children by the hand and walk back out to the car. So that looks prettygood, whereas the 7th and 8th grader, that would not fly with that child - - - would not want his mom to come in and grab him. So the last piece of this, there’s two other pieces to it from a traffic standpoint. We actually allow the cars to come in and park somewhat like a train in a subway station. So the cars come in and queue up in front of the building. A complete stop. Nobody gets to come in single file on their own if you would. So the entire two lanes up next to the school pull in. They stop, where our staff that works outside during this operation typically, I would say a minimum of about six people but usually closer to ten, they’re all out there helping to coordinate the children into cars, stopping the traffic. Once that group of cars, so to speak, that train load of cars pulls off, they’re released, as they pull out, you’ll notice there is sort of a long serpentine type exit. The distance that is laid in there allows that whole set of cars to come out and stack in there so that roughly there is 20 cars in that stack, can then be parked out by the road, ready to exit whenthe traffic lanes free up. That allows us to literally load up another train full of cars and that way you don’t have three hundred cars trying to exit the building all at the same time. You have basically a release in stages if you would. So, once we get things moving, generally in about a 30-35 minute window, we’ll empty the entire school and they’ll be in their cars and they’ll be off the campus completely. And that’s definitely not the first (inaudible) usually a couple of weeks in before everybody gets that figured out.

Councilman Shyne: Okay, Jean, where is Jean? I presume that you all went over this with the Traffic Engineers?

Ms. Glass: I would like to remind you this is not a hearing on the site plan or the zoning, only the annexation.

Councilman Shyne: Right, just on the annexation, but I just want to make sure that you all have a copy of this.

Mr. Stephen Jean: (MPC) Yes sir, that was presented to the MPC during the determination on parking was presented. There is an associated case that is in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals that will be heard next month that deals with the land use because the actual zoning doesn’t change, but there is a special exception use for a school. And we’re aware that a traffic impact study that’s being studied with the state.

Councilman Shyne: Jean, thank you. Now do we have anybody would like to speak in opposition to the annexation ordinances? If not then this public hearing is now closed.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Shyne, we have one other public hearing. It’s on Resolution 183. It’s a bond resolution.

4. Resolution No. 183 of 2014: Accepting the findings of a public hearing as a result of the Notice of Intention to issue, sell, and deliver not exceeding Seventy-Five Million Dollars ($75,000,000) Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds in one or more series for the purpose of financing the cost of acquisition and construction of improvements, extensions and replacements to the Water and Sewer Utility System of the City; and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Mr. Sibley: Mr. Chairman, we have Mr. Alex Washington who is with our Bond Counsel team who will present on the $75,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond.

Councilman Shyne: Okay, I’m going to declare this open. Is he ready? Okay Alex, come on up.

Mr. Alex Washington: Good afternoon Council. Just wanted the record to reflect that there has been no petitions filed any objections to the (inaudible) forward with both ordinances. The revenue refunding, the $76.7 (million) and also the new money for the $75,000,000. Any questions the Council may have?

Councilman Shyne: Okay, any questions for Council Members? If not, anybody from the public? If not let’s close. Okay.

The Clerk read the following:

AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 160 OF 2014Amend the Resolution as follows:

-Substitute the attached copy of the Resolution for the copy of the Resolution that was previously introduced. __________________________________________Explanation of Amendment:-This Amendment amends the Resolution as follows:

a) In the first “WHEREAS” paragraph: i) inserts the phrase “…in excess of two (2%) percent…” between the phrase

“…received from AEP/SWEPCO…” and the phrase “…derived from the distribution and sale of its electricity and electric current…”; and

ii) inserts the phrase “…such excess” between the phrase “…with all…” and the phrase “…franchise fees deposited…”

b) In Section 1 of the “NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED” paragraph:

i) inserts the phrase “…in excess of two (2%) percent…” between the phrase “…received from AEP/SWEPCO…” and the phrase “…derived from the distribution and sale…”; and

ii) inserts the phrase “…such excess” between the phrase “…with all…” and the phase “…franchise fees deposited…”

The intent of the Amendment is to clarify that the Bonds will be secured by and payable from that portion of the franchise fees deposited into the Streets Special Revenue Fund.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Everson, seconded by Councilman McCulloch to adopt Amendment to Resolution No. 160 of 2014. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

1. Resolution No. 160 of 2014: A resolution declaring the intention of the City of Shreveport(the “City”) to proceed with the issuance of not to exceed Seventy-Five Million Dollars ($75,000,000) Street Improvement Bonds, in one or more series for the purpose of financing the cost of constructing, paving and improving public streets in the city, including utilities relocation and incidental sewer and drainage work required thereby, making application to the Louisiana State Bond Commission for approval of such bonds and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Postponed September 23, 2014)

Motion by Councilman McCulloch, seconded by Councilman Everson to adopt Resolution No. 160 of 2014 as amended.

Councilwoman McCulloch: Yes, I just again, I wanted to remind the Council as well as those of you who are in attendance that probably about almost two years ago, the Mayor proposed a Fix The Street Program which entailed $100,000,000. At that time, we had over $128,000,000 need to do street repairs in the City of Shreveport. Knowingly that the $21,000,000 that came through the bond wouldn’t be enough per district. Cause we actually voted as you recall. The Council had to actually split $21,000,000 among the seven of us, which only gave us $3,000,000 and that was in Bond street money. And so of course the Fix The Street Program that was proposed, the project that was proposed by the Mayor almost two years ago, was voted down by this Council. I think the number was 5-2. And so, here again, you know the Mayor is proposing a $75,000,000 proposition here to possibly fix some streets that are in high priority that need to be fixed throughout the entire City of Shreveport. My concern is that you know as a part of my platform as well as some of my colleagues, the whole idea is to repair the streets in the City of Shreveport. The many complaints that we’ve been getting out of every district, as a matter of fact, there’ve been bus tours all over the City of Shreveport and citizens continue to complain about the need to repair streets. And we’re having these proposals that are being brought by the Council, andyet we as the Council, we’re refusing to either consider either one. And I’m just asking. I asked onyesterday at the Work Session if my colleagues would please consider the fact that districts like District A that are actually suffering for the need of street repairs. It’s not just District A, because you know it was a $128,000,000 need, and of course in District A, it’s a $28,000,000 need and in some of the other districts, there are millions of dollars of need as well. And so at some point, we need to consider doing an overhaul on the Fix The Street Program in the City of Shreveport and

some of the ideas that are being proposed by some of my colleagues, I just don’t see how it’s goingto take care of a pretty much $5,000,000 need throughout the entire City of Shreveport. And I’m just really asking on the sake of those districts that are really suffering if my colleagues would consider supporting Resolution 160. I’m asking you once again.

Councilman O. Jenkins: I have a request to speak. You know I think one piece of good news similar to the efforts of Sherricka and the Mayor and those that went to New York, obviouslywe got another $21,000,000 potentially. As I understood yesterday’s conversation, if I’m mistakenon that number, I believe that was presented, and I’d certainly be 100% behind using that $21,000,000 to address the streets program, its money we’ve certainly have a category already in those GOBs for fixing city streets. It’s not really a stretch. I think it’s in line with what the intent ofthat GOB was when we issued those. I do still have concerns. I’m not going to critique necessarilya budget that I just saw. But there’s some minus signs out there that I’d like to get resolved before we commit anything further for it. So, I’m 100% supportive of $21,000,000. I don’t think we need to make this step today. And so you’ll find me voting against this proposal today. Now I’m happy to once again either - - - to me it doesn’t matter whether we postpone it or table it, it’s kind of a little bit immaterial to me till we get through the end of the budget hearings to take this up rather than vote it down today. You know I could go either way on that. So if people prefer me to make a substitute motion, I’m happy to do that, but that’s where I stand today.

Councilman S. Jenkins: If you made a substitute motion to table it, I would second it. I justthink before we make a long term commitment it needs to go through the budget process. This is one of the only discretionary pool of funds we have available to the city, and once already this year, we had to go to this fund to sure up our General Fund reserve. I think it makes sense to me when we’re this close to a budget process, and we’re needing to see where they may be some deficiencies, hopefully maybe there will not be. But it makes sense to leave our cards on the table so to speak, take a look at what’s involved, and then make some decisions about some kind of longterm (inaudible) of the money. Once you’re committed, it’s committed. I just would rather do it on the back end after we’ve seen where the city stands at the end of the budget process and go forward with it in some form or fashion then as opposed to now. That’s what my reservation has been and continues to be.

Councilwoman McCulloch: You said, once we’re committed, we’re committed.Councilman Everson: Once the funds are bonded out.Councilwoman McCulloch: Right.Councilman S. Jenkins: Once you dedicate it to the bonds, there’s a commitment that

you’ve made there and that those funds are now tied up. Right now, we’ve got the discretion to goto these funds in case of some kind of emergency or have some kind of situation that we need to address. Of course I think everybody up here supports street repair, but it just seems to me this close to budget cycle, we could kinda make sure we have some kind of discretionary funds available to us in case the need exist. And this is one of the few places where you will find it, then let’s keep it available to us and then make a decision after that process has come to some kind of conclusion.

Councilwoman McCulloch: Jeff, I have one more question. So, would that mean? I mean this is a resolution now, this is not an ordinance. So what we’re really more or less trying to do is get the Council as a whole to support the idea, is that correct?

Councilman Shyne: No.

Councilman S. Jenkins: No, you’re doing a resolution to go ahead and move forward with the bonding a certain portion of the money that’s available in our Streets Special Revenue Fund. Once you make this commitment, then that money is committed to paying the debt for those revenue funds. Now although this is a good idea, don’t get me wrong, I just think - - -

Councilman Everson: I don’t think that’s actually accurate. I mean this is a - - -Councilman Shyne: Wait just a minute. Hold on, hold on, hold on just one minute, hold

on, hold it, hold it, hold it. Councilwoman McCulloch: That’s not how I understood it Mr. Chairman.Councilman Shyne: Okay, let’s let Councilman Jenkins get through. Once he gets through,

then we can we’ll go to somebody else.Councilwoman McCulloch: Yeah, I want the Mayor to explain it again.Councilman Shyne: Well just hold on one minute Councilwoman.Councilman S. Jenkins: Everybody could have their view about that, but you don’t take a

step like that unless you are willing to proceed with what it is you are proposing, which is to do a $75,000,000 street improvement bond. And you’re going to use a portion of the money that’s coming in annually to the Street Special Revenue Fund to pay the debt that’s on that bond. So, this is not something just to say I’m not going to do it, I just want to be able to do it if I want to. That makes absolutely no sense. I’m just saying that this is something that we want to do and we’re going to begin to take the necessary steps to legally make it happen. That’s the bottom line on it. Now, all I’m saying is this. If there is a motion to table this until after the budget process has takenplace, we make sure that we have funds available for other issues that could possibly come up, I’d be happy to give it another look, but right now on this side of the budget review, I’d just hate to seeus dedicate that kind of money and just not know - - - just don’t have a real good idea of where we are.

Councilman Everson: Yeah, I was just going to say, you know I didn’t support the previous plan, but if you think that this one has been right sized, I mean if you think that this is dedicating a lot of the full amount, this is a much smaller portion of the annual revenue that comes in, the revenue is coming in higher than the projection, and actually I am concerned actually that the transfers out of the fund that we’re using to pay for other things. And this does secure and make sure that the Street Special Revenue Fund money is going toward streets and will continue going toward streets for a long time to come. So it would resist the temptation to plug up the budget holes with this, so - - - and it gets a more manageable project level you know. Before I think one of my apprehensions about $100,000,000 kinda besides just the cost which is also a concern. But the size of that and how quickly that could be implemented is a concern as well. Whereas this one I do think has a good distribution of projects throughout the different classifications of streets. So, I said that to say that I’m supportive of this in the way that it currently is. But you know and I’m happy to vote on it now or not. I mean if it doesn’t have support, it could be brought back up another time. But I think this is a right sized plan that I think could benefit us and really get a lot of good work done throughout the city.

Councilman Webb: If we table this until after the budget, the budget has to be passed what? By December 15th? So that’s 10 days before 2-4 of us leave office. At least three of us are leaving office. So, we’re going to be voting on something that the next Council has to live with. I mean I would like to see the money locked down for a sense that the next Council would have to take it and spend it for that instead of robbing it for something else. Just a thought and I’m through.

Councilwoman McCulloch: One more question. When I spoke to you yesterday Oliver, I think I recall you having some concerns about not really knowing which streets were going to be addressed with the money. But according to what I’m hearing Jeff say, you know there is an even distribution.

Councilman Everson: Within the classifications. So I mean those arterial, and the collector.

Councilman O. Jenkins: Yeah, the bottom line is there is not a list of streets. But I’m not, I mean my overall concern is still my overall concern, that there is a secondary concern. But listen I will tell you that if you’re using the streets management program as the primary tool to guide that discussion, I’m very much in support of that and I believe that’s what was mentioned, it was mentioned to me and I believe it was mentioned to you. So, I endorse that proposal if that’s what we’re using in terms of debating where those monies were going. Hopefully, if we went forward with the $21,000,000, we would certainly use this same criteria as a way those resources go. I am in support of that. Absolutely, if we pay for a system, you got to be using it to determine how we spend that money. Otherwise we should have never spent it (inaudible). So, and I’m not in favor of that $21,000,000 is what we used to start our initial step, I am not in favor of dividing that by district. I’m going to tell you that right now in front of everybody. I don’t think that should be allocated, a certain amount per district. I think we should do some objective criteria. People don’t drive by district in this city. So, that’s where I stand as far as that. Okay. I have heard an urging from my colleague to the left to make a substitute motion to table it until after the budget meetings.So I am making that substitute motion at this point.

Substitute motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman S. Jenkins to table this legislation until after the budget meetings.

Mayor Glover: Mr. Chairman, Council Members the substitute motion essentially serves tokill the idea of doing anything to fix the streets. And it (inaudible) gives you an option of saying that you didn’t vote against the proposition to fix the streets, but essentially it’s still what you are doing. So, you know speaking from the administration’s perspective we would request that, if there are not the votes to vote for 160, then vote against it. If that’s your inclination. Because essentially voting to postpone it or to table it will essentially kill it. And to correct what was statedwith regard to this representing an absolute commitment to going forth. No, as you guys see here on even this agenda, there are multiple votes that will have to take place by this Council before we get to a point before there is a commitment. What this particular resolution does, it allows us to begin the process. As we mentioned to you two council meetings ago, it’s what gives us a chance to be able to go to get a date on the State Bond Commission agenda to begin to start the work at that particular level, that allows this process to go forward. It does not in any way complete the process. It allows us to begin the process. It does not allow us to complete it. But if you’re ever going to get to a point where we can complete, we’ve got to begin the process. Now specifically I respect the sentiment of Councilman Oliver Jenkins. You know if I represented and lived in District C, I probably would have the same position and sentiment. It’s no offense, and none taken.But when you represent a district that doesn’t have the types of street needs that the rest of the Cityof Shreveport has, you can afford to be able to take that kind of position. In fact as you all saw when you divided the $21,000,000 available amongst the seven districts, the streets that ended up being repaired in Councilman Oliver Jenkins’ district compared to your district Councilman Sam

Jenkins, those would have been considered some of the best streets in all of District G that ended up receiving almost a million dollars’ worth of capital reconstruction dollars because of the fact that you guys simply broke down those dollars, not based upon the actual needs across the city, butequal amongst the districts and that was the best that you could find that needed to be repaired (inaudible) District C. Similar set of circumstances in District B as well. So I can understand why there may not be such a great inclination to want to fix or allocate resources to fix streets. But Councilman Sam Jenkins and the rest of you all pretty much where your districts are, you’ve got issues and challenges. I know I hear as Mayor, wherever it is across the street, when are you guys going to do something about these bad raggedy, broken down, pot hole filled streets in the City of Shreveport? We have been trying for three years to advance a proposition to do just that. We started with an idea, Councilman Sam Jenkins, that you voted for at least twice, that would have committed all of these resources towards repairing and upgrading and making the streets better. Would have given up over $100,000,000 to do just that. We could not get sufficient votes to pass that. Listen to the concerns and complaints from you all as council members that said we don’t like the idea of committing all of it. So we’ve not come back with a proposition that says, if we don’t do all, let’s do half. That leaves a sum available, but it also as Councilman Ron Webb just mentioned, allows us to be able to have some assurance that the group of councilmen voted to havethis revenue stream can be assured in the years to come that this revenue will go towards fixing streets. If you don’t do that, then, if you’re not the Mayor Councilman Sam Jenkins, if the other folks who may end up on this council decide that they’ve got other desires or inclinations, these are dollars that could end up going for any number of purposes beyond fixing our streets. The truthof the matter is the streets in Shreveport are not going to fix themselves. Not only are they not going to fix themselves, they’re not going to pay for themselves to be fixed either. And where there are no uncles in Washington, D.C., or in Baton Rouge or anywhere else who’s going to showup with a pot full of resources and say, ‘Here Shreveport, go and fix your streets’. It’s going to be up to the folks who sit in these positions and circumstances to come up with the collective will to do that. Now, let’s specifically go Councilman Oliver Jenkins to what you just suggested. $21 (plus million) in premium that we got from the excellent work that was done by Sherricka and Charlotte. Your suggestion is let’s pledge all $21,000,000 of that towards fixing the streets. Great idea. Great idea. Would love to do it, but we can’t do that. Why? Because that $21,000,000 is splitup and divided by Propositions 1, 2 and 3. And so the portion that would go toward Proposition 3, the Streets and Drainage portion is not $21,000,000. It’s $3.9 (million) and $3.9 (million) either split up amongst seven districts or used on one particular project, does not go a very long way. Gives us a start. Allows us to say we’re doing something, but it doesn’t do anything. So guys, Madam Councilwoman, with all due respect either we want to say we’re going to do something about fixing the streets in Shreveport or we’re going to give people the impression that we’re trying to do something about trying to fix the streets in Shreveport. You all have been here now almost four years. This will be the fifth or sixth, if not the seventh vote that we have had in some form or another before this council to give us a chance towards fixing our streets.

Councilman Shyne: I believe that - - -Mayor Glover: We’re waiting to do something. But we want to know and be clear that

unless we actually do something that results in actual resources being allocated and approved and authorized to actually go out and fix the streets, they will not miraculously fix themselves. There is no Rumpelstiltskin who will come out and go out and fill up potholes around Shreveport. There is no anybody else that will happen. It will happen because the seven of you and the one of me

will come up with an idea to do it. Otherwise, we’ll end up handing this situation over in a couple of months to a new group of folks who have a pool of $6 or 7,000,000 of uncommitted unrestrictedmoney that could end up going for any purpose. And at this point, that could be two of you back, there could be four of you back, that could be four of you back plus a mayor, but in the worst case scenario, there could be only two of you back. Those two won’t outvote the other five. And there is no commitment that comes from whomever else could end up sitting in this seat. Doing something that says, money that was intended and envisioned and passed for the purpose of improving the streets. Committed and pledged to doing that, locks those dollars up and ensures that if you come back two years from now, four years from now, four years from now, six years from now, those dollars will be doing just that. Going towards helping to improve the quality of the street infrastructure in Shreveport. With that, I ask you for a positive vote for Resolution No. 160. If you choose to put it on or postpone it, we’ll deal with that. But know, for the record, today that doing that simply amounts to deciding to not fix the streets. And the next time you go and have to deal with and confront and talk to your constituents, in your district or anywhere across thecity, and the question comes up, ‘What have you done about the streets’? I would want to know what that answer is. Because here is something that gives us a chance to be able to do that here today. Not talk about it, not give lip service to it, but actually put feet to the faith we profess to have. With that I hand it back to you Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Shyne: I believe we have a vote before the council. Are we ready to vote?Councilman O. Jenkins: Are we voting on the substitute motion?Councilman Shyne: That’s correct, we’re voting on the substitute motion to table it until

further times. Please vote.

Motion failed by the following vote: Nays: Councilmen O. Jenkins, Corbin, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 4. Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson and Web. 3. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

RESOLUTION NO. 183 OF 2014A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF A PUBLIC HEARING AS A RESULT OF THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE, SELL AND DELIVER NOT EXCEEDING SEVENTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($75,000,000) WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS IN ONE OR MORE SERIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS, EXTENSIONS AND REPLACEMENTS TO THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY SYSTEM OF THE CITY; AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana (the “City”), applied for and anticipates receiving approval on October 16, 2014 from the Louisiana State Bond Commission to issue its not exceeding SEVENTY- FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($75,000,000) Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds in one or more series (the “Bonds”); and

WHEREAS, on the date hereof, to-wit, October 14, 2014, a public hearing was held pursuant to the Notice of Intention which was published four (4) consecutive weeks in the official journal of the City as required by law (the “Public Hearing”) and at such hearing, no petition of opposition thereof was filed which would prohibit the issuance of the Bonds without an election.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City, acting as governing authority of said City (the “Governing Authority”), that:

SECTION 1. Public Hearing. Pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended, and other constitutional and statutory authority, the Governing Authority does hereby accept the findings of the Public Hearing held pursuant to that Notice of Intention to issue its not exceeding SEVENTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($75,000,000) Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, in one or more series (the “Bonds”) and, due to the fact that no petition of opposition was presented objecting to the issuance of the Bonds, the Governing Authority desires to proceed with the issuance of the Bonds. Said Bonds shall be dated the date of delivery and shall bear interest from the date thereof at a rate or rates not to exceed six percent (6.00%) per annum and shall become due and payable and mature at such time or times, not exceeding twenty-five (25) years from the date of issuance.

SECTION 2. Publication. This resolution shall be published as soon as possible in the official journal of the City.

SECTION 3. Ordinance. The Bonds will be issued and authorized pursuant to a supplemental ordinance to be adopted by the Governing Authority, subject to final approval of the Louisiana State Bond Commission, anticipated to be obtained on October 16, 2014.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governing Authority hereby authorizes and directs its Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Finance, Clerk and such other officialsof the City individually and/or collectively to do any and all things necessary and incidental to carry out the provisions of this resolution.

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

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

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Everson, seconded by Councilman Corbin to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

RESOLUTION NO. 184 OF 2014A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FEES OF PROFESSIONALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF NINETY-THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($93,500,000) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2014 FOR THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSITIONS APPROVED IN AN ELECTION HELD ON APRIL 2, 2011 AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shreveport (the “City”), acting as the governing authority thereof (the “Governing Authority”) authorized the engagement of, and so engaged professionals to assist with the issuance of $93,500,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2014 (the “Series 2014 Bonds”) in a second and final issuance of General Obligation Bonds approved by the voters of the City on April 2, 2011; and

WHEREAS, the Governing Authority desires to approve the fees of such professionals.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE Governing Authority in due, legal and regular session convened, that:

Section 1: Disclosure and Approval of Fees of Professionals. The fees and costs of allprofessionals incurred in connection with the issuance of the Series 2014 Bonds and attached hereto as Exhibit “A” are hereby approved and authorized to be paid at closing.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governing Authority hereby authorizes and directs its Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Finance, Clerk and such other officialsof the City (the “Authorized Officers”) to do any and all things necessary and incidental to carry out the provisions of this resolution.

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 Everson, seconded by Councilman McCulloch to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch,Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

5. Ordinance No. 99 of 2014: Amending and supplementing Resolution No. 131 of 1984 adopted on June 12, 1984, as amended; Acknowledging and approving the issuance of not exceeding $75,000,000 water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, on behalf of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, approving and confirming the sale of such bonds; pledging revenues of the system to secure such bonds; prescribing the form, certain terms and conditions of said bonds; and providing for other matters in connection therewith.

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Everson, seconded by Councilman McCulloch to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

6. Ordinance No. 100 of 2014: An ordinance amending and supplementing Resolution No. 131 of 1984 adopted on June 12, 1984, as amended; Acknowledging and approving the issuance of not exceeding $76,700,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, in oneor more series, on behalf of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, approving and confirming the sale of such bonds; pledging revenues of the system to secure such bonds; prescribing the form, certain terms and conditions of said bonds; and providing for other matters in connection therewith.

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman

McCulloch, seconded by Councilman Everson to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

7. Ordinance No. 101 of 2014: An ordinance authorizing the incurring of debt and issuance of not exceeding twenty-seven million five hundred thousand dollars ($27,500,000) of general obligation refunding bonds, in one or more series, of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana; prescribing the form, terms and conditions of said bonds; designating the date, denomination and place of payment of said bonds; approving and confirming the sale of such bonds; and providing for other matters in connection therewith.

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Everson

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ORDINANCE NO. 101 OF 2014-Substitute the Ordinance that was introduced on September 23, 2014 with the attached copy ofthe Ordinance________________________________________Explanation of AmendmentsThe following minor changes are made to the Ordinance:-Adds “Principal Payment Date” as a defined term in Section 1 of the Ordinance;--Deletes the phrase “…and the

Motion by Councilman Everson, seconded by Councilman McCulloch to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance No. 101 of 2014. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Motion by Councilman Corbin , seconded by Councilman O. Jenkins to adopt Ordinance No.101 of 2014 as amended. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Shyne, I believe at this point, there was a consensus I think to take up the Circle K ordinance and resolution.

Councilman O. Jenkins: I’d like to make a motion to suspend the rules and do that.

Motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Corbin to suspend the rules to consider Ordinance No. 105 of 2014 and BAC-60-14. Motion approved by the following vote:Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7.Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Councilman O. Jenkins: So to clarify, we’ve got two items and Art if you’d be so kind to read the two appeals or the appeal and the ordinance. I believe one is Ordinance No. 105, Zoning Appeal C-44-14 and Zoning Board of Appeals BAC-60-14.

The Clerk read the following:

11. Ordinance No. 105 of 2014: ZONING APPEAL - C-44-14: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 Pierremont Road, 150 feet east of Line Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, LA., be and the same is hereby changed from B-1, Buffer Business District. to B-2, Neighborhood Business District except for the 30 most easterly feet which shall remain B-1, Buffer Business District and to otherwise provide with respect thereto (C/O. Jenkins)

The Clerk read the following:

Metropolitan Planning Commission Appeals and Zoning Board of Appeals

BAC-60-14: NE corner of Line and Pierremont Road. Special Exception Use, variance in rear yard, parking, and hours of operation in a B-2 District. (C/O. Jenkins)

Councilman O. Jenkins: And Mr. Chair, I’m gonna propose that we take up Public Comments at this time on both of these issues. Councilman O. Jenkins: Do you have a list of public comments for those who are planning on speaking?

Councilman Shyne: I do, I do.Councilman O. Jenkins: Let me ask first a question. Do you - - - obviously there are a lot

of people from the same neighborhood association, did y’all put together a proposal or an order or some type way you intended to - - -

Councilman Shyne: To come up and speak? Did you?Mr. Havard Scott: Excuse me, I’m here with the neighbors, the Pierremont neighbors. It’s

kinda of a little weird case. Because we each had a decision below and the ZBA and the MPC in favor of each party. So we’re both appellants and we’re both appellees. And rather than take it as two cases, maybe take it all together, and do the proponents for Circle K, and the proponents for the neighborhood, and since we’re both on both sides, there wouldn’t be any need for rebuttal that way and it probably would go a lot smoother. We’ve done this a couple of times, and we kinda have the Pierremont neighbors kinda have topics assigned to each person. So, it could move quickly.

Councilman Shyne: Right, but let me say this. I have a list, but it doesn’t say whether you are for or against. You know usually when you come down and you sign, and the slips don’t say whether you’re for or against. So, when you come up, then you get a chance to say whether you’re for or against. Now you’re saying that as a - - - are you president of a neighborhood association?

Mr. Scott: Not, the president of the association is here and he is one of the speakers from the Pierremont side of this.

Councilman Shyne: Okay well, let me let him come up as president of the neighborhood association, tell us your name and then if you have certain people that you want to come up behindyou, that’s well and good.

Mr. Cliff LeBlanc: (831 Delaware) I’m president of the South Highlands Neighborhood Association. What you’re going to hear today, we do have residents that are in attendance today totalk to you so that you can hear their issues and their concerns about this development. We’ve worked on this for the last three to four months trying to come to a resolution, and have yet to come to a compromise that works for both parties. I’m hoping that after you hear what their concerns are that you will reconsider the decisions that have been made by the MPC to allow this development to go forth as it stands. We have proposed some alternative developments that we believe would work for Circle K, and also benefit the neighbors. It’s the impact on the neighbors on Pierremont that are most specific. I am here representing the Board of the association as well as other Board members are here as well. But the impact that this has most dramatically are the folks that live on Pierremont. And that’s why we would hope that they would have the opportunity to speak to you today. So that they can share with you what their concerns are.

Mr. Tre Gibson: (5166 Tallow Lane, Bossier City, LA) I’m here to represent my mother who’s at 700 Pierremont. She’s on the block that this is going to impact. The concern that we had was letting Circle K, they’re the proponents of this issue, going first, and then we would follow. We know our issues so there shouldn’t be any rebuttal there. And so we were going to allow them to go first and let them present their case forward. I’m a paid professional, so generally the proposition goes first.

Councilman Shyne: Wait, hold it. Generally who goes first is when he signs the slips and they give ‘em to me, generally it’s whoever the Chairman calls goes first. I’m going to leave it up to your Councilman here. If he wants to change it around, well and good. But we don’t generally let y’all dictate on - - -

Mr. Gibson: No dictation mentioned, I apologize.Councilman Shyne: That’s absolutely what you’re doing. Now I’m going to leave it up to

your Council Member. If he wants Circle K to go first, well and good. I’m comfortable with that, but we’ll just try to keep it to three minutes. Unless he wants to give you more time, we give everybody three minutes and we’ll try to leave it to that. So now, if you want Circle K to go first, suppose Circle K comes up and says, ‘No, we don’t want to go first’.

Councilman O. Jenkins: And I have the feeling, we’re going to do that.Mr. Gibson: If Ms. Putman wants to go first, she can do that too Sir.Councilman Shyne: Right. See that cuts down the confusion. Now when we let you handle

it, then we run into a problem. So, why don’t you go head on with your people first since you’re uphere.

Councilman O. Jenkins: I mean you guys got up here first, you’re starting kinda last. We get to a point where there is an opportunity to respond to something, I’d be happy to grant somebody that opportunity to hear your case as the summary closes if that’s necessary.

Councilman Shyne: Thank you, but we get into a problem when we let other people dictatehow we need to do this. Go head on and get started.

Mr. Gibson: I apologize, my intention was to - - -create and order so that y’all don’t stay here too late. Because I know some people have campaigning to do and everything else. Alright, let’s go ahead and begin. My mother actually lives at this address down here which is at the end ofthe block. And Circle K and the development would be in this area right here. First off. I want to

thank you all, Mr. Chairman, Council Members, Mr. Mayor and Staff for all your support over the course of the time that we’ve been doing this. We’ve been involved in this since the beginning of July. I think we’ve got some simple concerns, and I’m going to lay those out for you quickly and I’m going to run through and give you kinda of an overview of what happened. The first one is thatwe’ve got three major concerns. The first one is that we love the B-1 District Buffers that we had. There were two buffers in this instance that the Master Plan set out. Remember we spent $2,000,000 on a Master Plan, yet it looks like the MPC is just really throwing that away. And the concern is not just ours, but it’s also the greater concern for the city, because if we can sit there andignore the Master Plan on one end, then every district ultimately gets hit. Second issue that we have is we would like the store to face Line Avenue. Where it faces right now. The idea there is it faces commercial, it’s in a commercial area, so commercial for commercial. When you actually face it towards Pierremont, you encroach then down the street on residential neighborhood, and that means you’re impacting those people that are across the street as well as next door. Which leads me to the third issue and that is the 24 hours that we won in the ZBA. I think the ZBA made a very good decision for many good reasons. If you actually watch the video, you’ll see the reasoning. I think it’s justified. But you go through and the 24 hour issue is, is when you take away the buffer zone, the B-1 buffer zone, you actually put a 24 hour business next door to a residence, across the street from a residence, and I don’t think that that’s good business at all. AndI’m kinda surprised that Circle K is not seeing our issue there. Let’s move on and let’s talk about what the neighbors have done really quickly. They have made every good faith effort to try and work with Circle K. You go back to the videos of the first MPC, they got up here and they beggedto actually sit down with Circle K. Circle K did not make any effort to actually meet with the neighborhood beforehand. When Circle K got up here in the first MPC meeting, they said, ‘No, we don’t need to meet with the neighbors’. We got to the next ZBA meeting, Circle K said, ‘We don’t need to meet with the neighbors’. And then the ZBA ultimately forced Circle K’s hand and made us meet with them. Well then only five of us were allowed in the room with Circle K to actually discuss our issues and negotiate. When we negotiated, only real four issues were won. They moved the dumpster. Great. They put some gables up on top the rood which were really inadequate in terms of the SPI-6. They created a 30 foot buffer which ultimately is meaningless, and (inaudible) logically and then they gave us an extra tree. Well, those things had nothing to do really with the major issues that we presented. At the second ZBA meeting, Mr. Peters needed some more time. And so the neighbors said, ‘Hey, we understand, we’ll defer, we’ll let you have more time.’ Then at the next MPC meeting, we kinda felt the deck was stacked against us and save one lone voice of reason, Mr. (inaudible) Cooper, Circle K, ended up winning that issue. Then we made it to the ZBA and then we won. My three minutes are up.

Councilman Shyne: What we’re going to do - - - let me say this. Since it’s so many of youall, we’ll be here until 12:00. So we’re going to move to give you two more minutes and please tryto bring it to a close and then because we’ve got people who are going to come up and speak behind you. Now we’re not necessarily in a hurry because nobody up here has to go and campaign. You know. You made that statement, somebody will pick it up and we don’t want that to go forth from this place. So, please.

Mr. Gibson: Well, I’ll jump into some things really quickly. A couple of issues that I thinkare important is some of the (inaudible) logic is that Circle K will get up here and try to argue in front of you. One of the ones that I love is when they put up a map and they actually use a zoning map to show that oh, there are other B-2s that are next to residences and they actually list some

out. For example, Camilla Lane, they like to talk about this. Well, this is where Pierremont Mall is.If you notice, none of these areas actually have 24-hour businesses next to them. 24 hours doesn’t exist on Camilla Lane because Pierremont Mall closes at 10. You look at Delmar Street, he’s actually mentioned that before. Delmar Street is next to Pierremont Park and Pierremont Park closes at 5:00 p.m. On our street, he mentions the B-2 next to a residence, and the idea there is well that’s a doctor’s office, a dentist office and it closes at 4:00 p.m. So the point I’m trying to make here is that some of the arguments that my opponent is gonna get up here and give you are going to be fallacious. So to sum things up, in 2013, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling stating without consistent zoning ordinance, there would be no planned and orderly growth in municipalities. Replacing long term rationality with short term expediency is no way to run Mayberry, much less Shreveport. And what this means is when we go and look at the Master Plan where we spent $2,000,000 on, if we’re not going to pay attention to the Master Plan, then this is not about one corner, this is not about one neighborhood, this is setting a precedence where none of the Master Plan actually matters at all at this point and time. So we’re not only impacting somebody’s sleep cycle by putting in a 24 hour business next to a residence area, you’re also impacting the future of each one of your districts in this area. Now Mr. Jenkins mentioned something as far as a plan, this is a plan that is basically after a discussion we had with Circle K. This is where I took a 3200 foot square foot building, that Circle K, Mr. Peters said was a 3200 square foot building, and again I’m no architect, but I did as best I could laying it in there by superimposing it. And you see that things can happen. Where we face Line Avenue. It’s a 3200 square foot building. So the neighbors have conceded on that issue. You actually save one of the B-1 lots. The neighbors are giving up one of the B-1 lots. The neighbors have tried to meet Circle K halfway and I’ll tell you even then the neighbors have also offered to allow extended hours from6:00 a.m. to midnight to try and help them out. Circle K walked away from the table saying ‘No’. And I’ll tell you one last important thing. In our meeting, Mr. Peters admitted that when he drew up the first plans, he had a design that was facing Line Avenue, but the SPI-6 happened, and he won’t put that on the table for us to discuss and so the neighbors have done all we can. So we appreciate your consideration and I certainly would encourage any questions.

Mr. Richard Goorley: (534 Pierremont Rd) I’m an attorney, but I’m not here representing anyone other than my wife and myself who are citizens living on Pierremont Road. And what we want to talk about since I have some knowledge about criminal law is why we oppose the 24 hour variance. The Department of Justice has done a study that shows stores like Circle K, conveniencestores are four times more likely to have crimes and other such stores. If we can use the overhead, well I’ll show it to you. It shows since 2001 until July 2014, Circle Ks had 81 crimes, Rite-Aid, right across the street has had 21 crimes. So it’s more than just - - - it does fit into the national statistic. The other thing that the Department of Justice, one of their publications - - - Community Oriented Policing talked about the robbery of convenience stores found out or determined that the No. 1, or the strongest factor contributing to convenience store robbery, particularly are stores that are opened 24 hours. And that’s what they’re asking is for a variance so they can stay open 24 hours, which is the major cause for robberies of convenience stores. And I would also like to point out that Pierremont Road is a residential road. We have neighbors there. It’s all neighborhood until you get down close to Youree Drive. And the way they plan on oriented the business facing Pierremont Road, which means when those robberies do occur and they will, the people who are perpetrating those robberies are going to be immediately into our neighborhoods, endangering those people around there. And Circle K can tell you that no we don’t really get robbed, it doesn’t

happen, I can tell you from my experience as a criminal defense attorney, they do get robbed, and the main time that they get robbed is late at night. And that’s what we’re concerned about because it’s our neighborhood, right there. Thank you

Ms. Margaret Rosbottom: (731 Pierremont Road) And I probably am the person that is going to be most affected by your decision today because I live directly or almost directly across the street from the proposed Circle K expansion. You have a very difficult decision. I’m glad I’m not in your shoes. Because on one hand, you have a corporation trying to expand its footprint and provide jobs in the city. On the other hand, you have a very, very long standing residential area that is trying to protect its way of life, by being protected by these ordinances and these city - - - I don’t know what you call it, where we’re protected by zoning. And so you have a very difficult decision, and I understand that. There is one thing that is certain, and that is whatever happens, we all will survive, that’s for sure. We hope that you will see everything in our favor, but maybe not, Idon’t know. So it is with deep respect that I thank you and my neighbors, and the South Highlands Association for all of your efforts in trying to keep Pierremont Road and South Highlands the way it is. Thank you so much.

Councilman Shyne: Ms. Rossbottom, I just want to commend you. You have made an extremely wonderful speech. Thank you very much for coming. This is what Democracy is all about and this is what makes America so great. Thank you very much hear?

Mr. Charlie Kingery: (703 Pierremont Road) And my wife Jennifer who wants to follow me.

Councilman Shyne: You write very fancy.Mr. Kingery: That’s the wife. We just wanted to basically concentrate basically on three

items. One is the one buffer. I mean that’s the point here with the MPC’s decision to give ‘em thechange and why we’re asking and why we’re posing it, is the word buffer. That buffer is in - - - gives us the buffer to commercial business along Line Avenue. And that’s basically what we’re asking you to uphold. We’re not asking you to change anything, basically. I mean the bare knuckles facts to that is that we’re asking you to uphold the current zoning as is. And that gives us the buffer. And when I was talking to one of the guys at the MPC, he’s like we’re more of a recommending body. It’s the City Council, that’s your governing body. And so he was almost kinda laying it in y’all lap in essence. And so that’s why we’re asking for that fact that if the governing body just upholds what the zoning is. You know we don’t have a Plan B for our house and how we can orient it towards Pierremont Road. Now Circle K has options about what they can and can’t do, willing or not willing to do. We just - - - we don’t. We can’t reorient our house. I can’t change the size of the house. You know it is what it is. And so we’re not saying, ‘Hey don’t do anything for Circle K’. You know if they want to plug money into it, that’s great, but we live there. We’re taxpaying citizens and we’re saying let’s all meet at the table and come up with a solution that everybody can be happy with that has the minimal impact of a 24 hour convenience store staring us in the face, with Ms. Rossbottom being No. 1, the Walkers being No. 2, and the Kingerys being No. 3 and reorient that along Line Avenue where everything else is already commercially oriented. And you know with the lightening, the cars pulling in in front of the store that would be parking in front of Pierremont, at a 24 hour store, a proposed 24 hour store, that want to go in at 3:00 in the morning, 4:00 in the morning. You know coming from clubbing. Who knows, I mean all kinds of things that’d be going on, and the disruption to the neighborhood that we’ll endure, whereas if it’s currently facing Line Avenue, the impact is not noticeable to us. We haven’t been here before or called the police complaining regarding their orientation what’s

happening on Line Avenue. So, that’s why I’m bringing it up, you know and I just want to harp on that word Buffer.

Ms. Jennifer Kingery: (703 Pierremont Road) I agree with everything my husband stated today, and I just ask for you to really consider what the citizens and residents on Pierremont Road are asking for. Ms. Goorley and I, Mr. Goorley’s wife, we went through all Pierremont Road fromCircle K - - - what is that heading east? And got a petition signed by all the neighbors that agree with what we’re stating today. And I can leave a copy of this for you guys. I think y’all have it. So that’s all I’m saying is just please acknowledge and consider what the residents of Pierremont have to say.Ms. Sally Spruill: (4537 Gilbert Drive) I’m here in opposition as you know to the Circle K. And Iapologize I can see you all with my glasses on, but I can’t read with those on. So I have to be semi-blind to y’all. I prepared an appeal and I’m not a lawyer and I’m not a planner, I’m just a resident. I don’t live on Pierremont, however I do care about the City of Shreveport and my only goal is thatwe look at our ordinances, respect our ordinances, because they are our zoning laws. And based onthat I did write two appeals. One was on the rezoning which I do oppose and I based that on Chapter 106 Zoning Article II, Administration Enforcement, Section 106.36 (inaudible) policy thatbasically says “This chapter, including the zoning map, is based on comprehensive planning studies and is intended to carry out the objective of a sound, stable, and desirable development…..”and it goes on. I hope you all read it, because I did spend a lot of time on it. Basically my conclusions are that based on that chapter and enforcement, change to this amendment and changing to this rezoning is not warranted. There is no reason quite frankly to do it. It doesn’t meet any of the criteria that’s listed of the four that are there. And so therefore I did make a summary for you all suggesting that you not do it. But in the body of that, I did also go into something very important. Since the adoption of the ordinances, we have also had a Master Plan adopted and we’ve also adopted an SPI-6, which is special interest overlay as well. And accordingto the Master Plan, this area has been given a special distinction as an Urban Village. And I’ll show you a map. I understand that the maps that were included in my appeal did not show up for y’all, so tell me if you can see these better. And this is where you may have to give me time, because this is where I have to back and forth up here like this, and it’s not going to be easy. As you can see, the stars - - - can you all see the stars bursts. Those are the seven designated Urban Villages and they are throughout the city. But our neighborhood happens to have one of them and therefore it makes it a special area according to the Master Plan. This is the future land use map inside loop as you can tell, there’s lots of colors and it gets hard to see. So I’m going to try to zone in exactly where we’re talking about, the intersection of Line and Pierremont and this map here. The light gray is where we are and that’s designated an Urban Village. Okay? Unfortunately as I indicated my appeal, there was a mistake in the Master Plan considerations. This was identified as General Commercial. Now there is a difference between General Commercial and an Urban Village. And to me the biggest thing that differentiates them is the Urban Village as defined in theMaster Plan and it’s cited throughout in different locations, but this is actually from the page in theMaster Plan that gives you definitions, and there is more than one page. It says and Urban Village as described in the Master Plan are locations suitable for a mixed use development with walkable precincts of compact higher densities. The point is that this was designated as an Urban Village. However in the materials given to the MPC Board, it’s called General Commercial. Now the definition of General Commercial in the Master Plan is different. Y’all will just have to give me a second, I apologize. Okay, General Commercial and I’m reading from Chapter 12, Page 24, large

commercial areas serving a citywide or regional trade area serving a citywide or regional trade areaincluding shopping and entertainment centers that offer a range of retail and service establishmentsincluding big box stores, large supermarkets, department stores, movie theatres etc., they are differently conceptually. When you go back to the map, this red section right here represents where the new Circle K at Southfield and Youree is located. It is a general commercial area. Therefore that type of development which is appropriately zoned for that area and therefore that’s why it’s there. And it is not the same in the Master Plan. So therefore it should not be the same in the development in our neighborhood. So, looking at the Article Amendment Policy, that says we really have no reason, there’s been no criteria met to do it, combined with the fact that the Master Plan indicates it, that’s not the correct use of that land. Impacted by the fact that this is considered by the Master Plan a stable neighborhood. I know all of this is in my appeal, and we have an SPI, Special Public Interest overlay, all trying to preserve and enhance the area. It is supposed to be dealt with differently than a general commercial area. So we ask that you respect the ordinances that are in place, that we don’t rezone, that we try to develop it, give other people an opportunity todevelop it as it was created and create the Urban Village it’s supposed to be. Now additional to that, I did put an appeal in on the site plan and I will very quickly state that as it’s been given to you. I truly believe that this goes against some of our existing problems with the site plan including accessory structures that have not been given variances. The curb cuts, there are too many. The one at this commercial center has less than ours is going to have. And the rest of them are in there for you all. I know I’m out of time and I know I can’t keep going on. But does anyone have any questions in regard to what the Master Plan says about Urban Villages? Is there any information I can give you that might help you again appreciate the differences that are there and what we’re trying to accomplish in our neighborhood by protecting the residents on Pierremont and by developing according to the Master Plan and the fact that the site plan might have some shortcomings to it as well.

Councilman Everson: Can I ask a quick question, and maybe for Stephen later. I don’t need an immediate answer. But I was just - - - I appreciate the land use map and I did find it in the Master Plan and see where it’s designated there on the future land use 12.5, but does the - - - I know the definition is there and you shared that, but is there a - - - you know does it speak to how an Urban Village, like other - - -are there further designations for how decisions like this are to be considered in an Urban Village?

Ms. Spruill: How what is to be considered?Councilman Everson: Does it spell out specific additional considerations? Or is that

something that is to be identified at a later point and time?Ms. Spruill: Well, it says for instance, it has different criteria based on the zone, future

zone map. And it talks in detail about each different delineation where it’s general commercial. One of the areas that Urban Village falls under is the mixed use area. And again, it encourages walkability. It says compact walkable low to medium density. It’s entirely a different concept than what a general commercial would be. General Commercial is exactly what Youree Drive is more like where you’re driving there, you have a car. You’re going to drive there, you’re going to park, you’re going to do what you’re going to do, get your gas, go to the convenience store, get in your car and you’re going to drive away. It’s there for big regional areas. Not a neighborhood compact walkable environment that should encourage people like Mrs. Rossbottom just told the story before. She can’t get across and get a cup of coffee. There’s nothing that’s saying, come walkto me. That’s what an Urban Village is supposed to be. And the Master Plan addresses it

Councilman Everson throughout it. It’s so many.Councilman Everson: Yeah I think I asked specifically.Ms. Spruill: I mean, did I answer it to try to grasp?Councilman Everson: I mean I understand what you’re saying, but I think it maybe I’ll

have to ask Stephen a little bit later. Just about it and we’ll have that opportunity. But thank you. Ido see it on the map and I think I understand your point.

Councilman Shyne: I think I’m going to have to stop this, and we’ll let Councilman Everson get his answer to the question at the end of this. I think we have other people who want to come up right now and you’ve been extremely good.

Ms. Spruill: And I do have lots of information if I can be of any help. Thank you.Mr. Havard Scott: (1049 Southfield Road) The property completely behind me is on

Pierremont between Fairfield and Southern. So, I’m very familiar with this area. I had 3 ½ acres inthe block bounded by Southfield, Pierrmont, Southern and Fairfield. Everything to my south fronts on Pierremont, and they’re all residences. That’s even two blocks closer to Line Avenue than this location. Look, I’ve been involved in this from pretty much the beginning on behalf of thePierremont neighbors. They have exhibited throughout a willingness to sit down with Circle K andresolve the issues with Circle K. The last meeting a week ago, some really nice stores that came ofCircle K’s website were presented to Mr. Peters as an alternate design for the store making a few changes in the store. It’d be easy for him to front the store on Line Avenue. He acknowledged in response to a question by me that he had a set of plans with this facing Line Avenue. That’s the biggest objection to the neighbors is the facing Pierremont Road. It’s not Pierremont Street or Pierremont Avenue, or Pierremont Blvd, or Pierremont Highway. It’s Pierremont Road. Pierremont Road was built as the connection between South Highlands and Cedar Grove with Broadmoor. And it’s long been a primary residential street. Now where it crosses other streets likeLine Avenue, it’s commercial. For instance the block behind me is commercial on the corners of Southern and Pierremont and Fairfield and Pierrmont, but not in between. This development will cause such an encroachment down Pierremont. You’ve got a- - - none of the neighbors that were asked to sign the petition refused to sign it. Now I know Circle K has come up with a list of peoplefrom all over the city that have signed saying that we think they should do this. Some of those people don’t know the true facts about how the neighbors have tried to work with Circle K. This started off as a 625 square foot store that was given ZBA approval in 1997 for 24 hour operation and ZBA approval from 1997 specifically states in it that development to be in substantial with submitted site plan with any addition or expansion would require review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. That’s 1997. I did a records request to the Building Permits Office, to get all of their building permits for this location, and what’s interesting is between the ZBA approval in1997, which has attached to it a site plan for a building 25.7 x 25.7. 630 square feet. Now, it’s doubled that size. It’s 25 x 50. Yet, nobody has any record anywhere in the city of a building permit issued on ZBA approval issue allowing them to double the size of their store. Now they want to triple it. Again, and the neighbors are saying, ‘Why not just double it again? Why not go to 2500 instead of 3200 and face it to Line Avenue and then we won’t have a problem.Are you calling time on me?

Ms. Johnson: Yes sir, I did.Councilman Shyne: We’re going to give you two minutes to bring it to a close.

Mr. Scott: It’s hard to rebut Mr. Peters when he hasn’t spoken, but yesterday he made a comment about the distances for the 24 hours not done right. I pulled the statute. It’s Section 106-645 for

the hours of operation in a B-2. 106-625 is for the hours of operation for a B-1. It says that the - - -it gives how you measure it within the statute. 106-645 says “The measurement of the required distance shall be made from the nearest point of the residentially zoned property line to the nearest point of any public entrance to the establishment”. The distances for their proposed store taken from their plans to the R-3 property that will then be next door is 73 feet to the property next to theR-3, which is R-1, the first residence is 185 feet. So there’s no question, but it’s within the 300 feet. So, I don’t know what Mr. Peters is going to argue. We suspect he’s going to argue that you have to use the distances that the alcoholic beverage board in Baton Rouge requires you to walk down the street, then walk up the street, then walk back. I don’ t know, but I would like an opportunity if he does make that presentation to respond to any questions at a later time. But the neighbors want to resolve this. I think a resolution is out there. I think a compromise is out there. I’ve been an attorney for 35 years. I have rarely seen over the 35 years something that can’t be compromised. This is begging for a compromise, and I ask you all, please support the Pierremont neighbors. They are the first line of defense. Ms. Rossbottom was right. You’ve got a tough job. Areally tough job and there are competing interest here. But that’s what the zoning code is all about,is about competing interest and the power lies with you to protect this really historical and important neighborhood in Shreveport. There is a resolution to this.

Councilman O. Jenkins: Councilman Shyne this is a very enthusiastic group and obviously there are a lot of them that would like to speak. But before belaboring this point, I’d certainly like a show of hands, at least of how many people are here in support of it, and then if they need to move on, they can leave and we give Circle K an opportunity to speak. I think we got a really goodflavor of where these people sit. But I’m happy to continue. I think that we can maybe expedite this by a show of hands of who is here in support, and if there is any specific issues that they’d liketo address that haven’t been brought up, and let them speak. But otherwise give Circle K a chance at this point, because I think they’ve done a great job of saying what their piece is at this point.

Councilman Shyne: I think you’re a man of much wisdom. And I believe that’s what we’lldo since you’ve twisted my arm to do that. Could we have a show of hands of people who are in opposition? Madam Clerk would you count? She’s counting.

Citizen – No Name Given: Mr. Chairman if I could make a comment. There were a couple of people here who had to leave earlier as well as my mother who unfortunately has to deal with taxation and has things to get in the mail tomorrow. She had to work as well as others.

Mr. Thompson: 20 people.Councilman Shyne: Mr. Peters, we’re not going to leave you out. Come. I see you

probably were smart not to sit with the other group. Seem like this is a very emotional group.Mr. Peters: (333 Texas Street, Suite 105C) I do have two or three people that have

something short to say.Councilman Shyne: Please bring them around this way. That’s why I don’t sit close to

Dale over there, in case I disagree with him, he can’t accidently reach over and throw something on me.

Ms. Kim Putman: (901 Monrovia) I’m a member of the South Highland Neighborhood Association. I just wanted to make sure that y’all understood that the neighborhood association, several of the Board members are here, but they’ve made no attempt to poll or ask any of the rest of the members how we feel about this upgrade. They’ve taken this stance and they’re representingthemselves as representatives of all of us. But if you get on the neighborhood association Facebookpage you’ll see there’s quite a bit of dissension on this topic. And I don’t think that side has gotten

presented to y’all. So I just wanted to make sure that understood that this is not at all as cut and dry as perhaps the neighborhood association is presenting it. I’d go to that Circle K, I use that Circle K. It’s a nightmare to get in and out of. It doesn’t take a business genius to figure out, they’re not going to do the upgrade if they’re going to lose their 24 hour operation. It wouldn’t make sense to invest in an upgrade and scale back your hours of operation. So, basically by opposing that, they are squelching the whole project.

Mr. Robert Dunlap: (Dillingham. No address given) My office is just in the Pierremont Office Park, so I go past this property every day until I win the lottery. And then maybe I’ll ride through there. But I was listening earlier when the debate was going on about the money that was for roads and things like that. And one of the things that strikes me, I go to Dallas quite a bit. And Dallas of course is a different city. But there are things about Dallas where it looks cleaner, it looks like things are happening, you drive back to Shreveport, and I’m sorry, I love this town, I grew up here. But it looks tired. Sort of like when you’re sick, or been sick for a week, you don’t take a shower and you just, you need something. You’d go take a shower, you might still be sick, but you’d feel a little bit better. And what I see in Shreveport is it needs to be spruced up a little bit. And we’re talking about we don’t have any money, you’ve got somebody who’s willing to make one part of Shreveport look a little bit nicer. Now, I understand the concerns, I’ve heard the concerns. If they don’t do the upgrade, we’re stuck with what we’ve got. I mean it’s a serviceable store, I don’t mean any disrespect. But when we look at the store on Southfield, we look at the other stores that they’re doing. They’re making it look nicer. That whole stretch I understand we’reabout to get rid of the tattoo parlor on Line Avenue. It’s going to be a nice restaurant. We’re fixingit up. That’s a good think and somebody, we’re not looking for the federal government, we’re not looking to the city government, we’ve got somebody who’s going to make it look nice. Yes I agree that there ought to be somewhat to reach a compromise, but if the compromise is such, well, if there’s a compromise, there is a compromise. I don’t have a dog in that fight. But if we’re dictating how somebody can spend their money and it’s a question of we’ll spend our money or just go away, you need to give a little more deference to who is going to be spending the money. I’d like to see a nicer neighborhood. I’d like to see maybe you could have a let’s paint Shreveport day or something like that on another topic. But ultimately if we can make this place look nicer, let’s do it. Let’s take the opportunity. Thank you.

Mr. Todd Miller: (544 Slattery) I’ve operated a business on Line Avenue for 20 years. My grandfather operated a business, he was the first house on Fern Avenue on the levy. He ownedthe Cotton Boll, some of you people may have eaten there. His name was Boyd Gamble. My father also self-employed a CPA here who lives on Kirby. So, I have blood, deep, deep blood here. And I’m not on the fence for or against. I’m for a compromise. And a beautiful compromisein a fantasy world which my daughter says some fantasies do come true, would be to have the entrance on Line Avenue. They have a beautiful store there which can be done I think. I haven’t heard enough argument that says that it can’t be done. So guess what I’m arguing for and my opinion, and the reason why I gave you that little spiff at the beginning, is hope that all of you think my opinion might count, (inaudible) debt that I have in Shreveport would maybe make that possible. I mean it only makes sense if they say it can be done to do it that way. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize no situation is going to be taken care of today. So, that’s just my opinion of how a perfect world would be to have a store look like that. And if they can’t, then they can’t, and I’ll have an opinion about that later.

Councilman Shyne: Alright anybody have any questions? Thank you for coming down.

Lake Heard: (Cook, Yancey, King and Galloway) I’m representing Circle K in this matter. Since I don’t have much time, I’d like to use the overhead for y’all to kind of review. I’m kind of the heavy in this deal I guess. You have to start with the premise that zoning and land use is construed in favor of the owner of the property to use it as he wants to. The issue is not as I saw yesterday, somebody said, ‘Well, the issue is whether or not the Council is of the people, by the people and for the people’. Well, before we jump to the Gettysburg Address, we need to remember their state and federal constitution is involved. And the main guiding principle is that a person is supposed to be able to do what they want with their property. That’s where you begin. You don’t begin with protecting one side or the other. You protect the owner to do what he wants with his property. Now in this case, of course Circle K owns the corner, Drs. (inaudible) and Jonesown the next two lots, and there these opponents would have tell them what they can do with their property. They’re people too. They have rights. I love when they bring up Urban Village, because Pierremont Road is classified by the Federal Highway Administration as “Urban Minor Arterial”. Now I got this from Kip Rogers at the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG). The characteristics of a Urban Minor Arterial are that it provides more access than principle arterials, and I’m quoting here “without penetrating identifiable neighborhoods”. So, the argumentthat this is a - - - some sort of a neighborhood, belies the definition of what this road is. This road is a big street. It moves a lot of traffic, it has the same speed limit and the same number of lanes as Line Avenue. It’s not a village lane. Now, the Master Plan defines Urban Village and Ms. Spruill quoted from the definition, but she didn’t finish the definition. It’s suitable for mixed use development with walkable precincts of compact higher density housing….and this is the part that she left out “and retail and services surrounding residential areas”. That’s an important part of the definition. It’s exactly what we have here. We’re retail operation. Now, by my reckoning about half of the appellants aren’t really aggrieved parties. Some of ‘em live almost a mile away. They can’t see it. They’re not going to know if it’s open 24 hours or not. The urban village by the way isif you look at it closely, it’s bounded on the north by Thora Blvd, about where Norton Art Gallery is. To the south about where Superior Mexican Restaurant is. To the west at about Thornhill, which excludes Mr. Scott. And to the east it’s about Dillingham. Which means that anybody that lives in the 700 block, anybody that lives on Gilbert. They’re not in the urban village. Now, that brings me up to Dillingham, and it brings up the SPI-6. The express purpose and I’m quoting from the Code here, is to promote compatibility of this primarily commercial corridor with the adjacent nearby resident neighborhoods. But the SPI-6 itself contemplates the development of commercial properties all the way to =Dillingham. So, it’s our position that the MPC decision should not be overturned. There is no substantial relation to health, safety or welfare to be gained by overturningthe MPC decision. The existing examples of B-1 and B-2 zoning that are contiguous with residential are widespread. They’re not just limited to this area of the city, they are all over. And that of course brings up the non-uniform application issues, and again overturning the MPC contradicts the express purpose for SPI-6.

Councilman Shyne: Any questions? If not Tim, we’re back to you.Mr. Peters: Mr. Chairman, members of the Council, Mayor and staff, thank you for your

service today and this opportunity to be before you. I’m real estate development manager for Circle K Stores. I reside at 541 Slattery in Shreveport, LA 71104. This is a little difficult to put everything in that I needed to cover and I had a lot of things but they’re not necessarily in the orderthat everybody addressed. So I’ll try it with my prepared statement and I’ll just address a couple ofthings first. 1) They said that we faced a residence. If you look at this photograph, the store will

face the Rite-Aid and a sliver of a dental office. This is a photograph taken at night to show the effects of the light coming out of the driveway. This is approximately from where the existing driveway is. Only it’ll be a little bit wider so the car actually would be over here. So the car wouldbe exiting directly towards the dental office before it makes its left turn. I talked about a buffer. The SPI-6 does not require a buffer between commercial and R-3, but we have provided a 30 foot buffer with extensive landscaping and two trees. Not just one tree. Mature (inaudible) trees. The focus of the business while some of it faces Pierremont is not focused on Pierremont. 70% of our customers either buy gas or they buy gas and they go in the store. So, 70% of the activity at the store will be taking place on the Line Avenue side. Yes, we have a petition to. 362 names about half of them identified themselves as living in South Highlands or in the Pierremont area. I didn’t ask. They provided their address, so I highlighted those. I also have a letter from the Vice-President of our company in our division office, stating that I have the authority to negotiate. I wasworking within company guidelines and I was following guidelines to the extent that we design prototype stores. Additionally as Mr. Havard pointed out, these are the distances of the appellants to the property. 731 is 210 feet. Goes 292 feet, 726 feet to 350 feet. 700 feet, 660 is 530 feet, 610, and then they start going over to miles. I have four supporters that live between the store on Edgemont. I have other supporters on Dillingham, Azalea, Creswell. Many of them all within the same distance of the people who appealed this decision. They count too. When you drive up Pierremont, this is the view from Dillingham. You can hardly see the corner, let alone the store site because of the thickness of the trees. This is the view from 700 Pierremont. This is the view from 730 Pierremont. Can anyone see the store site in that photograph. This is the view from 705. You start to see the corner when we put in the new landscaping. The new landscaping and trees will block what’s going on the other side of the street, so it will actually screen this house from the commercial activity on the west side of Line Avenue. And yet the store is going to be - - - we discussed today, I got approval to move it back another 10 feet, so it’ll be 80 feet from Pierremont Drive. The current building is 35 feet. If you move that store back another 45 feet, you won’t be able to see that store from this vantage point on this photograph. This is the view from Mrs. Rossbottom’s house. And she’s a delightful lady, I enjoyed visiting with her, she’s always very kind and understanding. This is what she looks at every day. This is approximately what the new store will look like. I’ve also offered to MPC that we’ll add an additional tree where we can squeeze it in here, or over here. We’ll have two new trees. This represents that - - - this does not show the store going back further. So that would be what she would be looking at instead of this. On the zoning, yes. 13 (inaudible) is a B-2, butting directly next to an R-1 or an R-3 or an R-3 already in this establishment. We requested from the MPC and were approved 6-1. Bring the B-2 to the edge of this pink line with a 30 foot buffer. It’s B-2 next to Mrs. Rossbottom’s house. Yes It’s a dental office, but it’s still the use, the convenience store use is allowed in B-2. This is 47 feet farther than what we were given by the MPC. There is no way anyone can identify or define that we are intruding into a neighborhood. We aren’t moving past the existing commercial that’s already there. On the 24 hours, and I’ll try to be as brief as possible. This is hard when you’ve got six minutes to respond to 30 or so. This is a map that shows the 24 hour uses that have been granted. Our store based on a straight line measurement, which the ZBA did not use when they were considering this case, they used the beer and wine measurement. On a straight line, our store is proposed to be 88 feet from the R-3. The average of the store and it’s not next to a residence. All of these stores are next to residences. The average of those is 88 feet. We aren’t asking for anything more than what everybody in the city has been given historically in Shreveport. We also

only - - - this is the only city where we operate stores less than 24 hours, and it’s only because the city won’t allow us to operate those four stores. And we’re closing them as our leases come up because we don’t make any money in them. They will lose jobs because we can’t absorb them in the small stores we have here. We need the bigger stores, we’re on the cusp of starting a 13 store expansion that will invest $35,000,000 over the next three years and create 120 jobs, and increase payrolls $2,000,000. I’m available for questions.

Councilman Shyne: Tim, we’re going to give you some more time, but we’re not doing thisfrom the standpoint that we gave them 30 minutes and we’re giving you that. That’s just the policythat we have. Now if you had brought 20 more people, then you know you’d have been able to get3 x 20, which would have been an hour. So we don’t base it on how much time we give one groupand we give the other group the same time. You know we try to be fair. But if you’d brought 20 more people, you know you’d have had another hour.

Mr. Peters: By now I think there’s a lot of questions that I can answer.Councilman Shyne: We’re going to give Council Members an opportunity to ask you some

questions. Now if they take three hours, well and good. If they take 20 minutes, that’s just the wayit runs. But we don’t really dictate on what people feel when they come here. We just try to be fair with everybody. So now we’re going to open it up for questions and then we’re going to turn it back to the Councilman that’s in your area. And if he wants to postpone, or if he wants to go through the vote, you know we want to see if we can work out a compromise, cause to be truthful with you, I’d like to see your business - - - I’d like to see you with an upgrade in that area. But I’d also like to see you with an upgrade where the people who live in that area, their rights are protected. Because they’re going to be there when you’re not there. And of course I’d like to see that $35,000,000 be spent. I’d like to see the other areas upgraded. But I don’t necessarily look at money as the bottom line on how you feel, because you probably put all the people together who live in that area and you might come up with $50,000,000. So, I’m not making my decision on juston the money factor. Of course although the gentleman is right. When you go to Dallas, you see a different situation than you see in Shreveport, but they are two different cities. But now that still doesn’t make me want to run over the residents who live in that area, because they might be a littlesleepy like I get some time. So, I’m going to leave it up to the councilman in your area. Again, like I say, I’d like to see the upgrade, I’d like to see Shreveport doing a whole lot of upgrading. Butin the meantime, I’d like to see those who stay here and have been here, I’d like to see their rights protected. Because I figured if they wanted to live a fast-paced, they’d get up and move to Dallas, or Houston or New York. I feel like you choose to live in Shreveport. So, I’m going to ask any Council Members, and then I’m going to refer to the Councilman in that district to make the last remarks. Because that’s who you all elected. You all didn’t elect me for that particular district.

Councilman O. Jenkins: But they would have Joe.Councilman Shyne: Would you all? Alright then. Thank you Oliver. Any questions,

comments from any of the Council Members? And then we come to Councilman Jenkins, Oliver Jenkins that is.

Councilman O. Jenkins: I do have some questions for Stephen Jean and I don’t know if other people have questions for Stephen Jean too.

Councilman Shyne: Oh, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. We’ve got one lady, and you’ve been here for so long. Oliver is it alright if I give her?

Councilman O. Jenkins: Sure. You’re the Chairman.

Councilman Shyne: Well, thank you then. Please come to the microphone and give us your name and number. Not your number I’m sorry. I’m so used to doing that, it just slipped out.

Councilwoman McCulloch: Address.Ms. Helen H. Wood. (943 Southfield) I appreciate y’all so much and I’m sorry to take any

more time in opposition. And I had a letter prepared. I won’t read it. Also I’m a own property on Atlanta Street and just around the corner on Fairfield. I’m in between the Circle K and Havard Scott’s house. And I am I think the first residential house and property to the west of the Circle K. I won’t read anything else on here except that because of the 24 hours and it’s been in place and that’s fine. I would love to see the upgrade and just the 24 hours restricted somehow. 10:00, midnight to 6:00 just something where over all 24 hours is not open. There are other spots. The new Youree Drive, the Olive Street Circle Ks are open 24 hours. There is a 24 hours Chevron that’s at St. Vincent and the Hollywood/Pierremont exit off I-49. That’s 24 hours. I just feel like that’s enough 24 hours in the area to service this neighborhood. We don’t have to have something right at our back door 24 hours to accommodate everybody. We have enough. And I know that there are instances of trash and graffiti and loitering and hiding out people from that 24 hour CircleK in my properties, on my properties. And that’s proved by logo cups left in my yard, littered that Ifind not present in the evenings when I settle in, but they do appear at first light in the mornings. That’s all I have.

Councilman Shyne: Let me ask this one question. How many of you all are in favor of the upgrade, but not the 24 hours? The upgrade that they are proposing.

Councilman O. Jenkins: They’re objecting to the orientation of the site plan.Councilman Everson: I think if it faced Line Avenue, they’d feel differently.Councilman Shyne: Okay, well would you feel differently if it was facing Line Avenue?Ms. Wood: That’s the whole idea.Councilman Shyne: Have you all had a chance to sit down and discuss that with Mr.

Peters?Citizen in the audience – No Name given: If it include the many times we’ve gotten up in

front of the MPC and the ZBA saying that we support the upgrade. Just not the proposed upgrade as it is. I think what you said Chairman Shyne was (inaudible) we support - - -

Mr. Thompson: We can’t hear.Mayor Glover: Mr. Chair.Councilman Shyne: I’m sorry, I’m sorry. They can’t pick you up. Now Time we’re going

to let you come back. We’re not going to let you stand here and get - - - I almost said hit with a switch. But you know the last time somebody spanked somebody, they lost their job.

Mr. Trey Gibson: I represent my mother at the 700 block. She lives at the corner of Dillingham. He showed her driveway. We support an upgrade to the Circle K. And we certainly support a bigger Circle K. The problem is that the proposed plan that he’s presented, he has not - -- and Tim can get up here and tell you, he won’t change the orientations to the store. Certainly we have some issues with design, but that’s a different issue altogether and we can work those things out. But in fact, what was it a week ago? Yeah it was a week ago, last Tuesday night, Tim came over to one of our neighbor’s house and we sat down and we tried to work through. We offered up plans and as I mentioned in my speech, we tried to provide an argument for orientation of the store. Tim pointed out that in his original design, he had it facing Line Avenue, before the SPI-6 came about. The neighbors said we would support him. We would support variances to try and work things out, and we would go the extra step on the hours whereas the B-2 says 7-10, we would

extend from 6:00 to midnight to try and help out. So we tried our best on that, and it didn’t work at least to this point. And we’d support your help on that.

Councilman Shyne: Tim, would you please come back again if you want to respond to that,and excuse me for calling you Tim. I don’t know you that well, but just charge it to my age.

Mr. Peters: That’s fine. 1) Mrs. Wood lives half mile from the store. She has maybe the first house on the other side of the office buildings on Southfield. But she lives behind a wall. AndI don’t know how a cup gets inside her wall, but you know. Secondly, the meetings that we had, I was the only one there with Lake and Roland. And they presented some pictures of stores that are no longer built by this company. This company is building a brand and a new brand recognition, and that includes anything like you see in IHOP or a Waffle House. Circle K is building a brand. We’ve got a brand new beautiful store. It’s a steel and block structure, built to last for years, and itwill lend itself to some other uses in the future if it’s no longer a convenience store. Again, we are not solely facing Pierremont. We are facing both streets. 70% of the business will be conducted on Line Avenue. Not on Pierremont. We are saving, we are reducing curb cuts. We are containing allof the drainage on the site that is currently leaving that. We’re increasing safety working with the city engineers. The plan that they showed for 3200 square feet and I requested the plans that we had drawn back a year ago when I started work on this and we no longer have them because the Vice-President of Real Estate would not approve them because they didn’t work facing that way. Idid sketch out a drawing, and I sent this to my superior and his Vice-President. This shows turning the store 3200 square feet by the way is the smallest prototype that we build. It’s actually giving the traffic that’s at this corner, we would want a 4400 square foot store. But the site’s not big enough. But we’re willing to live with 3200. That’s how much traffic is at this location. It would support a bigger store, but we’re going smaller. And we’re also on the small size of convenience stores. This is in the lower third of the sizes of convenience stores, and it’s in the lower third of the number of pumps. We’re only doing four pumps. Right now we’ve three, but you can’t even use ‘em all at the same time. This store that we built on the Old Minden Road, I tried to see if I could get a 43 x 75. It’s 3225 square feet. It would require variances through multiple things. It would reduce the landscape buffer that we have by more than half. It would take out the trees that we were going to plant. It would - - - we don’t really operate any stores that have a back door and my boss was really kind of upset that I even sent this to him. We have spent thousands of dollars in designing the site plan that is here working with the staff, and I’ve tried to accommodate everything that they wanted except for the fact that we aren’t going to turn the store, and we have to operate 24 hours. If we don’t operate 24 hours, we won’t build the store. Some of the other issues, we’re actually reducing the number of building square footage that’s on the site from 4400 square feet to 3200. We’re reducing the building coverage. The plans that they showed me were the 2400 square foot store only using our site and Dr. (inaudible)’s office actually had a higher building coverage than my plan. And when they tried to squeeze the 3200 square foot store on Dr. Winder’s office in our building, that resulted in an even higher building coverage. And it didn’t have access throughout the site. It didn’t have access throughout the site. It didn’t have ways for our trucks to get in. I tried to explain this to them in the meeting last night, but more often than not I was interrupted. They didn’t want to hear the explanations of why I couldn’t turn the store. We added a hip roof design, $30,000 because they didn’t like the original building. And that was based on a building down at Fairfield and Pierremont. They said we like that building, so I convinced my superiors to spend the extra money to upgrade the building. Create soft effect. The language in the SPI-6 says it’s supposed to be architecturally compatible with surrounding

residential areas, but there’s not definition on what that means. It’s up to the staff, the staff said it was okay in the first place, but I still went ahead and changed it. I changed a lot of things, I added a bike rack, I moved the dumpster because Mrs. Rossbottom was concerned about it making noise and waking her up in the morning like the Rite-Aid dumpster does, that’s behind her house. Even though we’re not near her bedrooms. I’ve added 120 feet of rot iron fencing with extra hedging to screen the property so that when you’re driving down Pierremont, you won’t see this store until you’re about maybe at the driveway. You won’t be able to see it as you’re coming up Pierremont. They talked about crime. The Rite-Aid is completely different operation. They have 4-5 employees in the store all the time. Of course, they’re going to have lower. They have security systems, more cameras, they’re a bigger store. They just operate differently. It’s apples and oranges to compare us to Rite-Aid. The last time our store was robbed was April of 2008. And the robbery took place at the bank where the manager had taken the money because an employee had called her boyfriend and said, the manager is going to the bank. We have a lot of shoplifting. One of the things that a study that I’ve included in the booklets that I gave you all the summary is one of the reasons convenience stores have a lot of shoplifting is they need better lighting inside and outside the store, better visibility. Since we built the store at Youree and Southfield, in the year prior to that, we had 10 major shoplifting events which is called a cigarette run or a beer run, where someone comes in and distracts the clerk that’s by themselves, because these small stores can’t carry the employee load. We had ten of those. Since we’ve opened at the end of April, we have had zero in that store. We have two clerks on staff around the clock with more during high peak period. Sometimes three or four plus a manager. We can provide much better service in thesebigger stores. We can provide many, many more jobs. 75% of our employees are lower sociologic economic class with only a high school degree and we promote actively from within and we give tuition reimbursements and they don’t even have to major in a business degree. We’re an active - - - we will go with this program of adding new stores, we will go maybe from 37th to the 12th largestemployer in this city. We’ll have a payroll of well over $5,000,000, $6,000,000. But we need this store and we need this store to be 24 hours in order to continue that development. Part of the problem, Shreveport has is that I’ve done this kind of development work for 30 years with five major Fortune 500 companies. This is the first time, I have ever seen in my experience that you have to come and ask for permission to operate your business the way you want to operate it. We don’t have to do that in Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, New Orleans, Covington. We get 24 hours by right there. The company doesn’t want to invest $60,000 per deal and if I’ve got 10 more coming down the road, you have to get this deep in the process, you have to design these things to show the difference boards for your variances and things and then say you can’t do it. It’s going to be very difficult for me to convince my superiors to continue making the pre-development and pre-construction investments here in Shreveport. We want to help your city. And we want your help tohelp us continue that program.

Councilman Shyne: Tim, thank you. I’m going to call Jean up and see if he can answer some of the questions that Councilman Everson. Okay.

Councilman Corbin: Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind before Stephen starts, Council Members each of you have a list of email questions I had sent to Stephen earlier today and I’m hopeful that in his comments he will be able to answer a good many of those.

Mr. Stephen Jean: Council, Mr. Chairman, Mayor. We believe we can answer most of your questions. I know that there have quite a number of emails that have gone up over the last few weeks and a number of questions. So I’m going to start with some of the questions that

Councilman Corbin had asked and one of the questions that has been brought up as it relates to the existing 24 hour operation. And of course you did hear and I will have to say that Mr. Scott did give a very accurate depiction of what it appears to be the facts concerning that case. That it did goto the ZBA, it did have a stipulation with it and it did get expanded without going back to the ZBA. Those however, there is a certificate of occupancy issued today, that allows the beer and wine sales and allows the 24 hour operation. That’s there and we could get into all the issues about non-conformity and all of that, but the fact is that they have a certificate of occupancy to operate. There is a- - -is there remedies to the public in that regard? And I would say at this point,since the time of that issuance, it’s been a number of years and especially it’s gone way past the 10day appeal period from the issuance of that, that more than likely that remedy may have to be sought in district court. Of course there are legal could chime in on that, but at this point, I think that would be the remedy on that issue. The issue of urban village and I do want to state that Ms. Wood is absolutely correct, that the correct district as you begin to zoom in on that map, legally does indicate another village. We are not disputing that in any way, shape or form. I do want to make sure that you understand that we do not have an urban village zoning districts on the books today. We don’t - - - we hope to have one very soon. We’ll have specific guidelines and laws thatcontrol urban village districts. Today, we do not have an urban village district that contains very specific criteria. We do however have an SPI-6. And that SPI-6 does require a number of things. Before I get into that, let me just show you that this was shown earlier. This is the boundary map of what is to be. It’s a future vision, and this is what this map is intended to do. It’s to articulate a future vision. And it does go on down to the end of the block as you can see. It doesn’t just stop, it stays centered on Line Avenue. This district would allow mixed uses. Both commercial and residential, and they could be side by side, they could be stacked on top of each other. Now I just want to make sure that you were saying when you look at that particular district today, I cannot think of an example in that district today that would comply with the vision that’s articulated in theMaster Plan right now. There’s going to have to be significant change in that community. And youasked a question earlier about what are we talking about. And probably the best I can describe what an urban village looks like, if many of you traveled to small communities like Minden and some of the East Texas communities and you look at those downtown areas, and where the buildings are real close up to the street, and you have sidewalk, it’s the old traditional look that youused to see in downtown areas, that’s kind of what we’re talking about. You see a lot of small communities turn those into areas of commerce where they have antique shops and they have a lot of different varied use, the difference is that you would see a residential component with that as well. So that kind of look and that feel is what we’re talking about. This would be a major challenge for us to convert this particular area to an urban village, but yes of course, that is the vision that was laid out for the people and we were more than willing as a staff to go after that vision. But today, we do not have the ordinances on the books today to implement those particularcriteria including bringing the buildings right up close to the street, and having shared parking agreements to make it to where the parking is located away from the street that allow people to kind of walk up and down, those could be doable with a lot of planning and a lot of effort. But today, we don’t have a zoning district that’s laid down that requires that. What we do have is the zoning districts that are on our books today, and we do have the SPI-6. The SPI-6 does require buffers. Those buffers primarily are for single family and two family. They also require a 10 foot landscaping buffer where it abuts residential, whether it is multi-family or single-family. There was a question about a buffer zone, and a lot of questions about what a buffer zone is. There’s in

the ordinance today, there is a requirement to have screening. That would be a site obstructing fence, and a 25 foot setback is required where you have residential and commercial abut. If you keep in mind, that when the MPC reserved the B-1, the 30 foot B-1, the adjacency is business to business. So you wouldn’t be required to have that 25 foot buffer at that point. When you talk about - - - and yes. The Buffer District is a district that in theory is a tool that can be used to help make gentle transitions from less than intensive uses to more intensive uses. There is also some language in the ordinance that talks about distance requirements. It talks about hours. If you look in the ordinance, and you look at the hours of operation, it specifically talks about the different hours of operation for different districts. Now in the course of us doing not only the Master Plan, but doing UDC work, every consultant that we talked to doesn’t know any other jurisdictions that actually does blanket zoning hours per districts. It’s usually done by use. But that’s what we have on the books and it does require if you were within 300 feet and it’s not 300 feet as you measure alcohol measurements, it is a 300 foot distance. If you’re within that distance, then you are by ordinance have to have 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but there is also a clause in that ordinance. It says unless authorized by the Zoning Board of Appeals. So there is a pathway that is for people to exercise by filing applications to extend that, and it’s been done so in many occasions throughout our jurisdiction. We were asked whether or not that you could limit the sale of diesel fuel to large vehicles like 18-wheelers? We believe that you could do that. You could put a stipulation along with a case to limit that. I think it would be difficult for us to do any kind of physical barrier, because you will have an 18-wheeled truck going there to deliver the fuel. But obviously that is something as I described yesterday, that I don’t really envision that happening, but if you wanted to do that you could. Also was asked what was the existing uses that could go next door where this, both of these cases status quo was to remain the same, what would be able to go next door in the dentist office is? Well, you could have a bank there. You could have several different light retail uses that would still be able to go there. But you could have an artist studio and things of thatnature. So there are some commercial uses that could still go in there and in case of a bank, they could have a 24 hour ATM if it’s connected as a part of that, they could have that by right, if a bank went there. So that kinda gives a highlight of some of those issues. I’ll be glad to answer any specific questions.

Councilman Shyne: I’m going to turn it back over to Oliver and Tim, you’ve been up twice, and if Oliver wants to bring you up, I’m comfortable with it.

Councilman O. Jenkins: I’d like to preclude having to do this statement rebuttal, statement rebuttal, because I am quite confident, both sides have rebuttals to each other. Now, you know I’ve been since the beginning a supporter of the upgrade. You know to be honest, I thought it was agood deal coming in. My biggest issue throughout this has been the orientation of the building. I’ve made significant overtures to include today, calling Tim to reconsider some type of plan. NowI understand that it’s all about economics. I run a company across the street that I’m very concerned with economics. There are some ways to work around those economics and I personallyam not of the opinion that that best foot forward has been made. The neighborhood has made significant overtures to include some proposed zoning changes as well as some overtures with regard to the hours of operation. So you know that’s kinda where I stand on the thing. I do believe encroachment on the neighborhood is the most impactful part of this particular proposal and that’s what should be paramount. For those that are interested in 24 hour operations, there are cettainly the store on Pierremont and Youree and the store on I believe it’s Hollywood and Linwood. Whatever those two corners have 24 hour operation, so I don’t think we’re denying the citizens of

able to do 24 hours of business. I even reached out today to the corporate Circle K office because I was given a letter and I believe an attachment from Tim. Sadly the phone number listed on the document either they didn’t expect somebody to reach out, did not go to anybody listed on the letter. Furthermore I found that the tone of the letter a little bit matter of fact and not really conciliatory in the sense that he was interested in receiving calls from us. So and I don’t know howthat goes and I’m not sure what the origination of that letter was. Certainly hoped it was a good faith effort to engage different part of the organization and apparently it wasn’t. Another point that we’ve seen in a lot of these pictures, you notice these FOR SALE signs in houses. I mean many of Tim’s pictures show those houses for sale. It happens to be six in that two block area. Do I think this has something to do with why those properties are not being able to be sold? Absolutely. I mean that’s impactful. I mean it certainly would impact me if I was a resident on the street and I couldn’t sell my house. There is a mention I believe about the SPI-6 and what that contemplated, and that contemplated the commercial development all the way down to the corner of Dillingham. Well, as the author if SPI-6, I can assure you it was not contemplated in that regard. The only person that could support me in that contemplation would be Dara Sanders who really did the pen and ink of the whole SPI-6, and she’s no longer with the city. But I can assure you if she was standing here, she would say that was not the intent. We wanted to include all of the stores that faced Line Avenue and in order to do that commensurate with the Master Plan, we had to go to the end of the street corner and we didn’t think it was appropriate to split a street in half on where this SPI-6 covered. So there was not that contemplation. I know that the SPI-6 possibly has been an constraint to the developer. I’m happy to entertain any variance in regard to changing SPI-6 for this particular use in order to prevent the store from facing Pierremont. I think there may be a littlebit of an unintended consequence. Certainly SPI-6 why we had the store fronts facing the streets was to prevent people entering into the back door commercial establishments that were on Fairfield and certainly not the idea of a building on the corner. The urban village, I think that’s an interesting discussion, I’m not sure where that helps or hurts here. I just would say I’d like to give those folks at Circle K one more opportunity to propose a frontage that faces Line Avenue, but if there is not overture in that regard I’m going to make the following motion. My motion is to uphold the appeal on the rezoning and deny the appeal on the variance for hours of operations.

Councilman Shyne: Can I get a second.Councilman S. Jenkins: SecondMs. Glass: So, the first thing is on the rezoning. There is an ordinance pending before you.

So normally what we do is make a motion to adopt and then I think you’re saying you’d be asking for a ‘NO’ vote so it would not be rezoned to B-2?

Councilman O. Jenkins: That is correct. And I should say that is my motion to adopt with the criteria of to vote against it please.

Councilman Shyne: Can I get a second.Councilman S. Jenkins: SecondCouncilman O. Jenkins: Okay, let me say one thing on rezoning and this was never

brought up. There is a very clear section, in Section 106: 36 – Amendment Policy to Rezoning. There are four criteria in there. Nobody, whether it be at the MPC or here has shown any reason why rezoning should be considered in this particular issue. It is not a manifest there in this chapter,there is not open land development issue here, there is not an issue of an industrial site, and I have proof to see that this particular metropolitan area is under a changing condition that requires a rezoning. I have not seen that presented here to me today and so I think we’ve become a little bit

lax in what requires rezoning, so that’s the nature of my proposal today.Councilman Webb: I’d like to make a substitute motion to uphold the decision of the MPC

and I’d like to speak on it.Ms. Glass: Well you wouldn’t need a separate motion, you just would vote yes to adopt the

ordinance. You’re asking for a ‘YES’ vote and Mr. Jenkins is asking for a ‘NO’ vote. It’s the same motion.

Councilman Webb: Okay, I understand.Councilman Shyne: Okay, now explain that again so - - -Councilman Webb: Yeah I wanted to speak on it, I’ll speak on Oliver’s motion.Ms. Glass: Don’t do ‘To Uphold or Not Uphold the MPC’ when there is an ordinance

pending. We do a motion to adopt it and you ask for a ‘YES’ vote or a ‘NO’ vote.Councilman Shyne: Councilman Jenkins is asking for a ‘NO’ vote. Councilman Webb is

asking for a ‘YES’ vote. Alright, it’s time for you to speak. Alright now, it’s time for you to speak.

.Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman S. Jenkins to adopt.

Councilman Webb: I guess SPI-6 was offered by you, correct?Councilman O. Jenkins: That is correct.Councilman Webb: And now something is infringing on something you don’t want to

infringe on, so now you’re saying you didn’t mean for it to do this or do that, or anyway, the reason why I think Shreveport is not growing. Because we make it so difficult for companies that have been here for a long time and want to expand, we’re not even giving them an opportunity to expand. I don’t think it’s really at the end of the day, five years from now or ten years from now it’s going to make a difference which way that store faces. And to deny them the growth, I just think we’re doing them an injustice and it sends the message out there to other companies that are thinking about coming to Shreveport that you know - - - I just think it’s bad, and I know well I’m not going to say that, but anyway I’ll just stop with that.

Councilman O. Jenkins: No.Councilman Webb: No, I’m not going to say it. So I’ll stop arguing.Councilman O. Jenkins: I don’t necessarily disagree with everything you said. I just think

that the eight people that live on this street deserve very, very strong consideration, since they are the most impacted. And that’s my - - -

Councilman Webb: And you look at those maps and pictures that he showed, you don’t even see the store until you get right up on it. And the houses that are for sale up and down the street, I don’t know how long they’ve been up for sale, but I doubt seriously if the truth could be found out, that they’ve got their house up for sale because of what going to happen on that corner. Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

Councilman Shyne: Okay before we vote again, let’s make it clear again on the yes and the now. Julie, do you want to explain that just one more time.

Ms. Glass: Mr. Jenkins is asking for a ‘NO’ vote so that the property will not be rezoned. Mr. Webb is asking for a ‘YES’ vote so that it could be rezoned.

Councilman Corbin: Julie, if we take the vote and the vote is ‘YES’, then is there a time limitation on when Circle K could come back to the MPC? Is there a waiting period or could they come back with something else next week?

Ms. Glass: Well, if it’s yes, then it would be rezoned and they would get what they’re asking for. Oh, okay…(inaudible), what was the question?

Councilman Corbin: Is there a period of time that the Circle K folks would have to wait to come back to the MPC with a new site plan and/or zoning?

Ms. Glass: There’s I believe a one year waiting period unless they ask for something lesser.Councilman Corbin: And where I’m going with that is, I heard Councilman Oliver Jenkins

offer an olive branch. And I guess - - - so my question is to Mr. Peters is are you going to grab hold to that branch or are you letting it drop to the ground?

Mr. Peters: Within the confines of how the store operates, I think you all are putting way too much focus on which way the building is facing. Because as I said, 70% of our transactions are going to occur on the Line Avenue side. If we turn the building and face it, that would still be the situation. And it would still be 30% of the business coming off the Pierremont side. So it’s really doesn’t change anything. And it doesn’t fit, doesn’t make for a very safe environment. One of the problems that we have at the site is that it is just too confined, there’s not enough people around it. A friend of mine got rear-ended the other day. Not rear-ended, somebody backed into him trying to get out of a gas pump. It’s just a terribly unsafe situation. The other issue is as you know providing diesel, 20% of American cars in ten years are going to be diesel and that includes Mercedes and BMWs. You know there’s going to be - - - you know a semi-truck cannot fit into this site without taking out telephone poles, and destroying our canopy. And we don’t have high speed diesel fuel. But I did offer that we could move the building back. I can add more trees for additional screening. I can add more screening on the Pierremont side, along the rot iron fencing that I’m not required to put in. So this would be an absolute gorgeous convenience store. I’m telling ya. It’ll look better than the shops at Bellmeade. And there was one issue that somebody brought up that I want to clear up that talked about the canopy height. They read the plans wrong, it’s 19 feet wide. It’s only 15 feet, six inches high. And we’re dropping the grade six inches, so it’s only really grown six inches from where it is today. But you know I really - - - I’ve gone roundand round and round with my boss. What can we do? And he says, ‘Look, we have as much right and as Mr. (Inaudible) pointed out, to use this property the way that we want to use this property and that’s what the constitution provides for us.

Councilwoman McCulloch: And how much have you all spent already you said in the design?

Mr. Peters: We’ve spent $65,000 so far.Councilman O. Jenkins: In answer to your question Councilman Corbin, if there was a - - -

and we asked Julie, if there is a chance to give them three months to revisit, I’m happy to add that to my stipulation, if that’s legal.

Ms. Glass: That would be to suspend the provisions of zoning ordinance. It’s a tricky question, because normally any changes to the zoning ordinance have to be submitted to the MPC first. I’m not, I mean you could put that in your motion, and we’d have to look at whether it’s really a proper motion.

Councilman Shyne: Let me ask Julie for just a moment. If we postpone this for three months, would that?

Councilman O. Jenkins: No, I’m just proposing that if he wants to not have to wait a year, he could come back within three months with a new site plan. That’s what I’m saying is can I make that as part of my criteria, if that’s where we are. I believe what she was suggesting is there is you know there is an opportunity here to give them some more time to consider it. But I don’t, I’m not an advocate of postponement. I want to make sure that I don’t want to leave it (inaudible),I’m just saying if they could reach an agreement, is there a way to put that in my motion?

Councilman Shyne: Well I mean, that’s - - - now Julie, tell me I’m wrong. That’s basicallywhat you’re asking, if he puts that in his motion? Isn’t it. That it would be three months before.

Ms. Glass: What I’m saying is that’s contrary to the zoning ordinance.Councilman Shyne: Right.Ms. Glass: And I just don’t know that there is a clear cut answer to that.Councilman Shyne: Well, would it be (inaudible) if the motion was to postpone? No, but

he could withdraw his motion.Councilman Shyne: Unless you all want to go through with the vote? I mean if you want to

- - -Councilman O. Jenkins: I’m happy to add that stipulation to - - - to the three months, and if

they find out to tell me that I can’t do it afterwards. I don’t know what else to do, if you think I can proceed that way.

Councilman Shyne: That’s right now I - - -Councilman Webb: Well, I’m asking for a yes vote from the Council.Councilman Shyne: Okay, he’s asking for a ‘YES’ vote, Oliver is asking for a ‘NO’ vote.

Let’s vote.

Motion failed by the following vote: Nays: Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 5. Councilmen Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch and Webb. 2. 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman O. Jenkins to uphold the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals and deny the variance.

Councilman Corbin: Okay, quick question Mr. Chairman. As I understood Mr. Jean’s remarks, the existing store in his opinion will continue to operate 24 hours a day unless that’s challenged in district court.

Ms. Glass: Ms. Scott and I looked at that today and you know, like he said unless it challenged, we think that this does not affect the other operation.

Councilman O. Jenkins: And I’m asking for a ‘YES’ vote on this particular motion.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 6. Nays: Councilman Webb. 1. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Mr. Thompson: Mr. Shyne, there is a request that the Director of the MPC be introduced, do you think this would be a good time?

Councilman Shyne: Okay Stephen was it you or who? If it takes both of y’all come up.

Mayor Glover: One is our citizen volunteer and one is staff, so it’s most appropriate for both.

Ms. Lea Desmarteau: Good afternoon Chairman Shyne, councilmen and Mayor Glover. I’m pleased to officially introduce you to our new City and Parish Executive Director for MPC. Aspromised, our selection of this very important position was done with transparency and with collaboration with our governing bodies such as yourself. And public input. We want to thank you for all your input and your advice and your wisdom that we have during this process. I believe with Mark, which I’ll introduce in a minute, Mark’s superior qualifications and experience. The Board is very confident he will lead our staff to work with you and the Parish and the Mayor, hopefully for very positive changes in the growth of our fair city. So please join me in welcoming Mark Sweeney.

Mr. Mark Sweeney: Well I appreciate you for that introduction Lea, I appreciate it very much. And I just want to tell you and the City Council that I’m looking forward for the challenge. Ialready see there’s lots of challenges from just this first meeting with you and there’s a lot of things I think we can do to hopefully accomplish the goals that y’all want in terms of the comprehensive plan, but also some things that we can do that maybe in ordinances that will improve the process and make things happen in a more effective way, while obtaining the quality of life that you’re looking for, for your community. I’m excited. I think this is a true golden opportunity. I think with all the things that are happening in Shreveport and the Parish that there are a lot of things happening that will actually make this process even more effective for all of us. I know there’s an election coming up with new leadership coming into play. I’m new. That’s means we’re all going to be on the same learning curve together which means we’re going to help each other and we can all help each other and we can all be on the same page together. And I just want you to know that I’m available to you for whatever your needs are and any way that I can help you in planning forward for this community.

Councilman Everson: Can you help make situations like that go away? No, I’m kidding.Mr. Sweeney: There are some things that we can do that might address the issue that you

just dealt with. And I’m willing to study that. I don’t claim that I have any original ideas, but I sure know how to borrow good ideas from other places. And put them into reality, and to customize them for Shreveport. Because every community is different, and has unique things aboutit. But I’m willing to do research in that area and bring before you some ideas that I think might help you in the long run.

Councilman Shyne: Now let me say this. We’re not asking you to be a magician. Just you know we want to be supplied with sound information. Not magical things, but sound.

Mr. Sweeney: Absolutely. And things that will endure the legal tests that can happen and we know how things are nowadays, people file lawsuits on any reason. And so we want something sound and enforcement and fair to the community.

Councilman Webb: Where’s your hometown?Mr. Sweeney: Actually, I’m originally from Dallas area and grew up there, but I came here

from Austin.Councilwoman McCulloch: You left Austin?Mr. Sweeney: And the traffic is horrible.Councilman Webb: Have you been to Bossier yet?Mr. Sweeney: I crossed the barrier, I have visited Bossier. But I do live on the west side of

the river so don’t worry.

Councilman Webb: Welcome.Councilman Shyne: Where is Terri? Terri, okay you don’t have to come up. I’m looking

for some legal (inaudible) with this. So, get ready. Thank you hear? Mayor did you want to say anything to him, cause you may have to help sign his check.

Mayor Glover: I am delighted to have a chance to again be able to formally welcome Mark to Shreveport. I had a chance to be in several meetings, in fact I think the very first day. He started on October 1st. I might have been one of the first folks on his agenda. But it has been an absolute delight to work with you. Great to have you here and it’s wonderful to know that the Cityof Shreveport has the ability to be able to attract wonderful things from Austin. Not only Mark Sweeney, but Whole Foods and others. And it’s also I think significant that Scott Martinez came here from the Austin area as well. And so that speaks very well I think of exactly what it is that many folks believe, that Shreveport and North Louisiana is becoming. So, thank you. Look forward to continuing to work with you and as Chairman Shyne said, we don’t need you to be a magician, but a miracle worker, we (inaudible) and on those fields as best you can, and then lastly I want to take a quick moment to say to Lea, and all of the members of the Metropolitan Planning Commission, outstanding job. You all withstood quite a bit of external pressure that came from folks that should not have been attempting to exert themselves into your process. You stood firm, you stood strong, you stood tall. You followed the law, you maintained the highest of ethics, and the outcome is standing here before to serve the people of Shreveport and Caddo Parish extremely.My thanks to you and all of your fellow Board members.

Ms. Desmarteau: I appreciate that, thank you.Councilman Shyne: And Mark before you go to take your seat, we have a Mayoral

candidate, Ms. Arpino, she might be signing your check.Mr. Sweeney: I’ll be nice to everybody.Councilman Shyne: Right, so you might want to shake her hand and say hello to her.

Thank you very much. Alright Mr. Thompson, I believe we’re ready to move on.

Adding Items to the Agenda, Public Comments, Confirmations and Appointments.Adding legislation to the agenda (regular meeting only) and public comments on motions to add items to the agenda.The Clerk read the following:

1. Resolution No. 199A of 2014: A resolution in support of the concept of an Atlanta/Jackson/Shreveport/Dallas high-speed rail system and to otherwise provide with respect thereto

2. Resolution No. 200 of 2014: A resolution to suspend certain provisions of Chapter 106 and Chapter 10 relative to dispensing, sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages at Fairfield Medical plaza, 2015 Fairfield avenue, for the Susan G. Komen race for the cure event and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Everson)

Councilman Shyne: Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of adding these pieces of legislation to the agenda? Please come forward. If there is anyone here who would like to speak in opposition to adding these pieces of legislation to the agenda? If not, I’m going to ask Councilman Oliver Jenkins if he would make the motion and Councilman Sam Jenkins.

Motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman S. Jenkins to add Resolution No(s). 199A and 200 of 2014 to the agenda.

Councilman O. Jenkins: I’m all for the Glover/Burrell Railroad coming in.Councilman Shyne: I was getting ready to ask the Mayor if he had a chance to talk to my

friend and Dale’s, State Representative Roy Burrell, so you can get a favorable vote from me, but if you didn’t I might vote against it. Because this piece of legislation, we have to have a solid vote. Did you, are you - - -?

Mayor Glover: I’ve carved out three hours off my schedule, I’m looking for another two, because it’s going to take at least five.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 6. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: Councilman Webb. 1. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Public Comments (In accordance with Section 1.11 of the Rules of Procedures)

Mr. Sammy Mears: (1901 Centenary Blvd) I just wanted to say that over in my area on Centenary Blvd, one of the people that lives on Centenary one night did go to the Circle K where I’m at and they went to get something and when they came out, they were attacked from behind and robbed.

Councilman Shyne: Sammy, let’s hold that. The Circle K that you’re talking about is not the one, yeah it’s a different Circle K, and we’ll get to you when we. Cause if not, we’ll have two or three other people that want to come up and talk about the Circle K on Pines Road, or on the Cooper Road or over in Mooretown, and we’ll get to you in a minute Sammy.

Confirmation and Appointments: None

Consent Agenda LegislationTo Introduce Routine Ordinances and ResolutionsResolutions: None.Ordinances: None.To Adopt Ordinances and ResolutionsResolutions:The Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 185 of 2014A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BRISCOE PROPERTIES L.L.C. TO CONNECT LONG LAKE ESTATES UNIT NUMBER 22 TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO. WHEREAS, Briscoe Properties, 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 Briscoe Properties, L.L.C. be authorized to connect Long Lake Estates Unit Number 22 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 Corbin, seconded by Councilman S. Jenkins to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 6. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: Councilman O. Jenkins. 1. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

RESOLUTION NO. 186 of 2014A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RONALD REYDOLDS AND MELANIE K. B. REYNOLDS LOCATED AT 9505 PLEASANT HILL ROAD TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.WHEREAS, Ronald Reynolds and Melanie K. B. Reynolds have agreed to secure all permits and inspections required by the Shreveport Comprehensive Building Code. Said party having submitted a petition for annexation to the City of Shreveport, and having agreed to fully comply with the regulations of the City of Shreveport in connection with said property, all as set forth in Section 94-1, et. Seq., of the Shreveport City Code. Said request and petition are attached hereto.BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, regular and legal session convened, that Ronald Reynolds and Melanie K.B. Reynolds be authorized to connect the structure, located at 9505 Pleasant Hill Road 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 Corbin, seconded by Councilman S. Jenkins to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 6. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: Councilman O. Jenkins. 1. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

RESOLUTION NO. 187 of 2014

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RONALD BIG G. PROPERTIES, LLC LOCATED AT 6848 W. BERT KOUNS INDUSTRIAL LOOP TO CONNECT TO THE WATER & SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.WHEREAS, Big G. Properties, LLC 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 theCity 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 Big G. Properties, LLC be authorized to connect the structure, located at 6848 W. Bert Kouns Industrial Loop 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 S. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Corbin to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 6. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: Councilman O. Jenkins. 1. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0

Ordinances: None.Regular Agenda LegislationResolutions on Second Reading and Final Passage or Which Will Require Only One ReadingThe Clerk read the following:

RESOLUTION NO. 177 OF 2014A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED THE 2014 INTERNAL “MUNICIPAL WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION REPORT” CONCERNING THE NORTH REGIONAL AND LUCAS WASTEWATER PLANTSWHEREAS, the state permits under which the North Regional and Lucas Wastewater Treatment Plants operate require an internal survey form to be completed annually and submitted to the City Council for review; andWHEREAS, forms for the past year have been completed by City staff and are attached hereto;NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, legal and regular session convened, as follows:That the City Council acknowledges that it has reviewed the attached survey forms; that the 2010 general obligation bond issue and the sewer rate increases enacted in 2013 were intended to provide funding to maintain compliance with the plants’ permit requirements; and that consideration will continue to be given to future long term funding needs for treatment plant and collection system capital renewal needs.

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 thisresolution 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 S. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Corbin to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 6. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: Councilman O. Jenkins. 1. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

RESOLUTION NO. 178 OF 2014A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED EQUIPMENTBY HERBY K’S RESTAURANT AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City desires to participate in programs which directly benefit the citizens of the City by participating in community activities which serve to benefit those who serve and protect abandoned and unwanted pets; and

WHEREAS, Herby K’s Restaurant, desires to provide an event that will support Pet Saversof Shreveport, Inc., a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to rescue, protect and place abandoned and unwanted pets, by hosting a block party on Sunday, October 26, 2014; and

WHEREAS, Herby K’s Restaurant has requested the use of certain city-owned tables, chairs, trash cans, and other such event equipment to produce the event; and

WHEREAS, the programs and services Pet Savers of Shreveport, Inc. would be able to provide to local abandoned and unwanted pets would serve a public benefit and serve a public purpose.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that the use of the equipment by Herby K’s Restaurant on October 26, 2014 during the Herby K’s Restaurant Block Party to benefit Pet Savers of Shreveport,Inc. is hereby approved.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the use of the equipment by Herby K’s Restaurant is conditioned upon the execution of an indemnity and hold harmless agreement by Herby K’s Restaurant in favor of the City of Shreveport in a form acceptable to the Office of the City Attorney.

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

Councilman Everson: This is a fundraiser and we approved the alcohol aspects of it some weeks ago, but we omitted a portion that allows them to use some equipment.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 6. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: Councilman O. Jenkins. 1. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0

RESOLUTION NO. 179 OF 2014A RESOLUTION SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10 AND CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON NOVEMBER 13, 2014 RELATIVE TO DISPENSING, SALE AND/OR CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE 700 BLOCK OF TEXAS STREET, DURING THE INSTRUMENTS A COMIN’ AWARD CEREMONY AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETOBY: COUNCILMAN Jeff Everson

WHEREAS, Tipitina’s Foundation, Inc. located at 4040 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana will host the Instruments A Comin’ Award Ceremony on November 13, 2014 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m.; and

WHEREAS, Tipitina’s Foundation, Inc. desires to dispense, and allow the consumption and sale of alcoholic beverages in the 700 block of Texas, between the hours of 4:00 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.; and

WHEREAS, Section 106-130(6) provides that unless otherwise excepted, all uses shall be operated entirely within a completely enclosed structure; and

WHEREAS, any special exception approval granted to the establishment for alcoholic beverage sales, consumption and/or dispensing does not specifically authorize outside sales and/or consumption on the premises; and

WHEREAS, Section 10-80(a) makes it unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange orotherwise dispose of alcoholic beverages except within those sections of the city wherein such saleis permitted by the applicable zoning ordinance; and

WHEREAS, Section Chapter 10-103(a)(5) provides that the city council may suspend or revoke any permit if a retailer allows any person to consume any alcoholic beverage on the licensed premises or on any parking lot or open or closed space within or contiguous to the licensed premises without a proper license; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of this resolution would allow the dispensing, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the 700 block of Texas Street, on November 13, 2014 to host the Instruments A Comin’ Award Cermony.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveportin due, legal and regular session convened Sections 106-130(6), 10-103(a)(5) 10-80(a) and 10-172 are hereby suspended on November 13, 2014 for the Instruments A Comin’ Award Ceremony, between the hours of 4:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m., in the 700 Block of Texas, hosted by Tipitina’s Foundation, Inc.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other applicable provisions of the City of Shreveport Code of Ordinances shall remain in full force and effect.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or

applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or application, and to this end, the provisions of this 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 Everson, seconded by Councilman McCulloch to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch,Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

RESOLUTION NO. 181 OF 2014A RESOLUTION FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE OF LOUISIANA OFF-SYSTEM BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.WHEREAS, the Code of Federal Regulations as enacted by the United States Congress mandates that all structures defined as bridges located on all public roads shall be inspected, rated for safe load capacity, and posted in accordance the National Bridge Inspection Standards and that an inventory of these bridges shall be maintained by each State; and WHEREAS, the responsibility to inspect, rate and load post those bridges under the authority of the City of Shreveport in accordance with those standards is delegated by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to the City of Shreveport.NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in due, regular and legal session convened that the City does hereby certify to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (herein referred to as the DOTD) that for the period of 1 October 2014 through 30 September 2015:The City will perform all interim inspections on all City owned or maintained bridges in accordance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards.All bridges owned or maintained by the City will be structurally analyzed and rated by the City as to safe load capacity in accordance with AASHTO Manual for Maintenance Inspection of Bridges.The load posting information that has been determined by the LA. DOTD for all bridges where themaximum legal load under Louisiana law exceeds the load permitted under the operating rating as determined above will be critically reviewed by the City. Load Posting information will be updatedby the City to reflect all structural changes, any obsolete structural ratings or any missing structuralratings,All City owned or maintained bridges which require load posting or closing shall be load posted orclosed in accordance with the table in the DOTD Engineering Directives and Standards Manual Directive No. 1.1.1.8. All DOTD supplied load posting information concerning a bridge shall be critically reviewed by the City Engineer prior to load posting.All Bridges owned or maintained by the City are listed separately in the format specified by the DOTD. Correction to data supplied to the City by the LA. DOTD are noted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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 RESOLVED that all ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman S. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Corbin to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

RESOLUTION NUMBER 182 OF 2014A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY’S INTEREST IN CERTAIN ADJUDICATED PROPERTY AS SURPLUS AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETOWHEREAS, there are numerous parcels of property which have been adjudicated to the City of Shreveport and Caddo Parish for non-payment of ad valorem taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Caddo Parish under which Caddo Parish will undertake to sell said properties as authorized in R.S. 47:2201-2211, andWHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26-300 of the Code of Ordinances, the city’s interests in said properties can be sold after the City Council declares them to be surplus; andWHEREAS, the City of Shreveport has an adjudicated tax interest in the properties described in Attachment “A-16” for the non-payment of City property taxes; andWHEREAS, the purchasing agent has inquired of all City departments regarding the properties described in Attachment “A-16” and has not received any indication that they are needed for city purposes.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport in due,regular and legal session convened that the properties described in Attachment “A-16” are hereby declared surplus.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 26-301 of the Code of Ordinances, this declaration that these properties are surplus satisfies the requirement of Section 26-301(1)(d), therefore the MAYOR, Cedric B. Glover, is authorized by said Section 26-301 to do any and all things and to sign any and all documents, including Acts of Cash Sale, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, necessary to effectuate the purposes set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or the application thereof be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications, and to this end the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared severable.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman S. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman O. Jenkins to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

10. Resolution No. 199 of 2014: A resolution supporting the concept of Atlanta/Jackson/Dallas high-speed rail system and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Corbin to remove Resolution No. 199 of 2014 from the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

RESOLUTION NO. 199A OF 2014A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCEPT OF ANATLANTA/JACKSON/SHREVEPORT/DALLAS HIGH-SPEED RAILSYSTEM AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETOWHEREAS, high speed trains have become a necessary tool for competing in a globalmarketplace; andWHEREAS, high-speed trains draw cities closer together, making local businesses moreproductive and more innovative; andWHERES, implementing a high-speed rail system along theAtlanta/Jackson/Shreveport/Dallas corridor will integrate and boost the economy of the City ofShreveport and North Louisiana by turning journeys into commutes; andWHEREAS, a high-speed rail system running along this corridor would be the first majorsegment of an east-west high speed rail system connecting over 20 million people and wouldhave a major impact on enhancing both the local and the national economy; andWHEREAS, this segment, using federally owned right of way within the I-20 corridor,can be constructed quickly and provide the viability of high-speed trains in the City ofShreveport and in the region; andWHEREAS, the governing authority of the City of Shreveport has previouslydemonstrated its endorsement and support for passenger rail service in North Louisiana by theadoption of Resolutions in 2013 and 2014 (“previous Resolutions”); andWHEREAS, development of a high-speed rail system along theAtlanta/Jackson/Shreveport/Dallas corridor in addition to development of passenger rail servicealong either or both of the two (2) corridors identified in the previous Resolutions will provide amajor economic development incentive for the growth and development of the City ofShreveport as well as other cities, towns, Parishes and Counties located along these corridorswhich is a public purpose; andWHEREAS, high-speed rail would potentially create thousands of jobs, reduce harmfulCO2 emissions and provide a more conducive market for further economic development withinthe City of Shreveport and along the Atlanta/Jackson/Shreveport/Dallas corridor.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport,in due, regular and legal session convened that the City of Shreveport hereby supports andendorses a high-speed rail system connecting the Atlanta/Jackson/Shreveport/Dallas I-20corridor.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution or theapplication thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items orapplications of this resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items or

applications, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution are hereby declared to be severable.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewithare hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman S. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman McCulloch to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch,Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

RESOLUTION NO. 200 OF 2014A RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 106 AND CHAPTER 10 RELATIVE TO DISPENSING, SALE AND/OR CONSUMPTION OFALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT FAIRFIELD MEDICAL PLAZA, 2015 FAIRFIELD AVENUE, FOR THE SUSAN G. KOMEN RACE FOR THE CURE EVENT AND TOOTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.BY: COUNCILMAN JEFF EVERSONWHEREAS, Susan G. Komen will host the Race For The Cure Event onSaturday, October 25, 2014 between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9: 00 p.m. in theFairfield Medical Plaza parking lot located at 2015 Fairfield Avenue; andWHEREAS, Susan G. Komen desire to dispense, and allow the consumptionand sale of alcoholic beverages on the Fairfield Medical Plaza parking lot located at,2015 Fairfield Avenue, October 25, 2014, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.; andWHEREAS, Section 10-80(a) makes it unlawful for any person to dispensealcoholic beverages except within those sections of the city wherein such sale ispermitted by the applicable zoning ordinance, Section 10-190(a) prohibits consumptionof alcoholic beverages on the parking lot of a business or on other property of abusiness where said property is open to the public, Section 106-130(6) provides thatunless otherwise excepted, all uses shall be operated entirely within a completelyenclosed structure, and Section 10-81 provides that Section 10-41 (requiring a retaildealer's permit) shall not apply to a bona fide nonprofit event meeting the requirementsof this section, only when it is held within the confines of an enclosed building; andWHEREAS, Section 10-103(a)(5) provides that the city council may suspend orrevoke any permit if a retailer allows any person to consume any alcoholic beverage onthe licensed premises or on any parking lot or open or closed space within orcontiguous to the licenses premises without a proper license; andWHEREAS, the adoption of this resolution would allow the dispensing, sale andconsumption of alcoholic beverages at Fairfield Medical Plaza parking lot on Saturday,October 25, 2014 between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.; for The Susan G.Komen Race For The Cure Event.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofShreveport in due, legal and regular session convened that Sections10-80(a), 10-81,10-190(a) and 106-130(6) are hereby suspended on October 25, 2014 for the Susan G.Komen Race for the cure event, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. at theFairfield Medical Plaza located at 2015 Fairfield Avenue.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other applicable provisions of the City ofShreveport Code of Ordinances shall remain in full force and effect.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or item of this resolution orthe 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 invalidprovisions, items or application, and to this end, the provisions of this resolution arehereby declared severable.BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all resolutions or parts thereof in conflictherewith are hereby repealed.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Everson, seconded by Councilman Corbin to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Introduction of Resolutions (Not to be adopted prior to October28, 2014)The Clerk read the following:

1. Resolution No. 188 of 2014: A resolution approving the 2015 Downtown Development Authority Program of Work and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

2. Resolution No. 189 of 2014: A resolution ratifying the execution of a cooperative endeavor agreement with Louisiana Film Prize, LLC, and to otherwise provide with respectthereto. (B/Everson)

3. Resolution No. 190 of 2014: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a cooperative endeavor agreement with Shreveport Metropolitan Ballet and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Everson)

4. Resolution No. 191 of 2014: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a cooperative endeavor agreement with Shreveport Opera and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Everson)

5. Resolution No. 192 of 2014: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a cooperative endeavor agreement with Shreveport Symphony Orchestra and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Everson)

6. Resolution No. 193 of 2014: A resolution authorizing the Purchasing Agent to dispose by public auction of surplus vehicles/items and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

7. Resolution No. 194 of 2014: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a cooperative endeavor agreement with the Red River Desk and Derrick Club of Shreveport, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

8. Resolution No. 195 of 2014: A resolution authorizing the submission of the 2015 Annual Action Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and otherwise provide with respect thereto.

9. Resolution No. 196 of 2014: A resolution amending the Cooperative Endeavor Agreementwith the Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port Commission relative to providing water and sewerage to the Port of Shreveport Bossier and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

10. Resolution No. 197 of 2014: A resolution repealing Resolution No. 168 of 2014; Authorize the employment of Special Legal Counsel to provide legal advice, counsel and representation to the City of Shreveport; Ratifying any/all work previously performed; and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

11. Resolution No. 198 of 2014: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Independence Bowl Foundation, Inc., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman S. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman O. Jenkins to introduce Resolution No(s). 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193,194, 195, 196, 197, and 198of 2014 to lay over until the next regular meeting.

Councilman Webb: Could somebody explain 194 to me a little bit.Councilman O. Jenkins: I’ll be happy to. So it’s the Desk and Derrick Club are

predominantly women that work in the oil and gas industry and they have an organization called the Desk and Derrick Club. And they sponsor a Chili Cook-off in Festival Plaza. They did not do itlast year, but they have done it for three of the last four years. That is 194.

Councilman Webb: Yeah and I thank you. I meant 196, I apologize. The amendment to the Port is the one I meant to say.

Ms. Featherston: This is the second amendment. The original agreement was back in 1995 at the very beginning of the Port. And basically this cooperative endeavor agreement allows the Port to take actually take out loans to construct the infrastructure for their facilities and then what happens is on anyone who’s tied to those lines, we give them 90% of those revenues and we keep 10% for operation maintenance. And that’s the basis for this agreement. We’re amending the agreement because they are asking to do another construction project under this agreement. And soa redundant water main that will help (inaudible) that whole area, because right now, what you have is going down Youree Drive is a dead end 30 inch water main. And if something happens on that portion of that water main that’s dead ended, there’s no water for Bentler or Pratt which are obviously two very large industries that require water 24/7. And so this will allow for a redundant (inaudible) around the Port. One, a 24 inch coming from the (inaudible) extension that was anothercooperative endeavor agreement that was done by the Port and then a back feed to Bentler with a 16 inch line from some of their existing infrastructure. And it’s about a $2 ½ (million) project is what they’re telling me.

Councilman O. Jenkins: Can Bentler still use any of that gray water. When we met with them initially, we offered the gray water. They were not excited because the quality is not what they need. And until we do a project to put filters in place at the treatment plant, it’s just very

conducive for reuse. I mean what we have is a situation where at any point and time where we have a plant upset, the total suspended solids basically (inaudible) particles in the water, they reallydon’t like those in their equipment with regards to small spring nozzles. They’re using it for cooling on their issues with having - - - even though we meet out permit limits, it’s really not conducive for - - - we use water for cooling applications, our cooling seals on equipment, water coolant seals and those types of things, it’s not very conducive. So ultimately the project at Lucas to install filters that will reduce that suspended solids down to a level that is very, very low and consistent, you know we’re not going to get a lot of takers.

Councilman O. Jenkins: Okay, (inaudible) issue now. At some point at a future infrastructure meeting, I’d love to know what the cost and scope of that type of project is.

Ms. Featherston: Absolutely.Councilman O. Jenkins: Thank you. I think that is an important deal that we’re wasting an

opportunity out there frankly is between Bentler and Pratt being able to utilize something that we’ve already spent a heck of a lot of money on to put it in, in the first place, and now it doesn’t meet the water quality. Sorry, I’m off track, back on focus.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Introduction of Ordinances (Not to be adopted prior to October 28, 2014)The Clerk read the following:

1. Ordinance No. 108 of 2014: An ordinance amending and replacing Ordinance No. 69 of 1988, to change Section (1) of this ordinance, from a Stop Intersection to a Four-Way Stop Intersection, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/O. Jenkins)

2. Ordinance No. 109 of 2014: An ordinance to amend and reenact certain sections of Chapter 94 of the code of ordinances relative to utilities and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 110 of 2014: An ordinance amending the 2014 Capital Improvements Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (FTA Allocation)

4. Ordinance No. 111 of 2014: An ordinance amending the 2014 Capital Improvements Budget, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Runway Rehabilitation) (G/S. Jenkins)

5. Ordinance No. 112 of 2014: An ordinance closing and abandoning the west portion of View St., between Baker St. and Douglas St., in the W. R. Carter Subdivision in Section 37(T18-R14W), and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (B/Everson)

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman Everson, seconded by Councilman S. Jenkins to introduce Ordinance No(s). 108, 109, 110, 111, and 112 of 2014 to lay over until

the next regular meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Councilman O. Jenkins: One last request to speak. Before Ms. Arpino leaves, I just wantedto recognize her, because it looks like they’re on their way out and I think she kinda came in, in themiddle and we had a lot of stuff and we didn’t get a chance to recognize her. So appreciate her coming down today and watching our process.

Councilman Shyne: Ms. Arpino, thank you very much.Councilman O. Jenkins: Y’all are welcome to go, I was just saying if you were leaving I

wanted to - - -Ms. Arpino: Actually I was asking him about the Port question. That Lucas Plant was my

old (inaudible) purifiers if you need to on that gray water, whether Bentler, Pratt or whoever was going to kick in the cost of those purifiers on the back of my (inaudible) 30 inch water line.

Councilman Shyne: Okay, I hope Councilman Oliver Jenkins got that so when it comes up again, he can make sure that he puts that in.

Councilman O. Jenkins: I’d be delighted if they did.Mayor Glover: Looks like he’s about cost us some money Mr. Chairman.

Introduction of Ordinances (To be adopted no later than December 15, 2014)The Clerk read the following:

1. Ordinance No. 113 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Capital Projects Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

2. Ordinance No. 114 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Riverfront Development Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

3. Ordinance No. 115 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 General Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

4. Ordinance No. 116 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Retained Risk Fund Budget,appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 117 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Metropolitan Planning Commission Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

6. Ordinance No. 118 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Community Development Special Revenue Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

7. Ordinance No. 119 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Grants Special Revenue Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

8. Ordinance No. 120 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Shreveport Redevelopment Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

9. Ordinance No. 121 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Downtown Entertainment Economic Development Special Revenue Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

10. Ordinance No. 122 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Golf Enterprise Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

11. Ordinance No. 123 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Airport Enterprise Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

12. Ordinance No. 124 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Water And Sewerage Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

13. Ordinance No. 125 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Budget funding Contractual Services provided to SPORTRAN by Metro Management Associates, Inc., and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

14. Ordinance No. 126 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Downtown Parking Enterprise Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

15. Ordinance No. 127 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Convention Center Enterprise Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

16. Ordinance No. 128 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Convention Center Hotel Enterprise Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

17. Ordinance No. 129 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Debt Service Fund Budget, appropriating the funds therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

18. Ordinance No. 130 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Streets Special Revenue Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

19. Ordinance No. 131 of 2014: An ordinance adopting the 2015 Downtown Development Authority Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing withrespect thereto.

Read by title and as read, motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Corbin to introduce Ordinance No(s). 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 and 131 of 2014 to lay over until the next regular meeting. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Ordinances on Second Reading and Final Passage (Numbers are assigned Ordinance Numbers)

The Clerk read the following:

1. Ordinance No. 95 of 2914: An ordinance amending the 2014 Capital Improvements Budget, and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Port and Delaware Lift Stations)

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Corbin to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7.Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

2. Ordinance No. 96 of 2014: An ordinance amending the 2014 Budget for the MPC Special Revenue Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Corbin to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7.Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.0.

3. Ordinance No. 97 of 2014: An ordinance acknowledging that the City Council has reviewed the 2014 “Municipal Water Pollution Prevention Report” concerning the North Regional and Lucas Wastewater Plants.

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Shyne, seconded by Councilman Corbin to remove Ordinance No. 97 of 2014 from the agenda. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

4. Ordinance No. 98 of 2014: An ordinance authorizing the city to close and restrict vehicular access to Lake Street from Commerce Street to Sci-Port Center, and otherwise providing with respect thereto. (Public Hearing to be held October 14, 2014) (B/Everson)

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Everson, seconded by Councilman McCulloch to postpone until the next regular meeting.

Councilman Everson: It’s the one that we asked for more information, and they brought us some information today. And the Administration is still going to provide some additional information.

Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

8. Ordinance No. 102 of 2014: An ordinance declaring the city’s intention to acquire full ownership of certain adjudicated properties for the Shreveport Commons Project and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Everson, seconded by Councilman McCulloch to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

9. Ordinance No. 103 of 2014: ANNEXATION – TAG NO. 14-04: An ordinance enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport – A 32.14-acre tract of land, located west of Norris Ferry Road, and south of Southern Loop located in Section 29 (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (D/Corbin)

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Corbin, seconded by Councilman O. Jenkins to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

10. Ordinance No. 104 of 2014: ANNEXATION – TAG NO. 14-05: An ordinance enlarging the limits and boundaries of the City of Shreveport - a 14.4-acre tract of land, located at 3142 Bert Kouns Industrial Loop in Section 5 (T16N-R14W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Webb)

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Webb, seconded by Councilman O. Jenkins to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

12. Ordinance No. 106 of 2014: ZONING - C-63-14: An ordinance amending Chapter 106 of the Code of Ordinances, The City Of Shreveport Zoning Ordinance, by rezoning property located on the SE corner of Jordan Street and Line Avenue, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, LA., be and the same is hereby modified to read as follows: B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District by adding: limited to “residential lodging facility with transitional housing on the third floor” only and to otherwise provide with respect thereto (B/Everson)

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Everson, seconded by Councilman S. Jenkins to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

13. Ordinance No. 107 of 2014: ZONING - C-70-14: 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 Forbing Road, 270’ south of Emily Street, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, LA., be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: from R-1D-E, Urban One-Family Residence/Extended Use District to R-1D-E, Urban One-Family Residence/Extended Use District limited to a “contractor’s office with inside storage” only and to otherwise provide with respect thereto (E/Webb)

Having passed first reading on September 23, 2014 was read by title, and on motion, orderedpassed to third reading. Read the third time in full and as read motion by Councilman Webb, seconded by Councilman S. Jenkins to adopt. Motion approved by the following vote:Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, Everson, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne, and S. Jenkins. 7.Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: 0. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

The adopted ordinances and amendments follow:

ORDINANCE NO. 95 OF 2014AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2014 Capital Improvements Budget to shift project funding and for other purposes.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legal session convened, that Ordinance No. 118 of 2013, the 2014 Capital Improvements Budget, be further amended and re-enacted as follows:In Program F (Sewer Improvements):Decrease the appropriation for Lucas & N. Regional WWTP Expansion (00-F001) by $390,000 and close the project. Funding source is W&S Revenues.Decrease the appropriation for Broadmoor Sewer Outfall 48" Sewer Main Rehabilitation (11-F001) by $200,000. Funding source is 2011 GOB Proposition 1.Increase the appropriation for Port Lift Station Rehabilitation (13-F001) by $590,000. Funding source is W&S Revenues and 2011 GOB Proposition 1.Open Delaware Lift Station Improvements (11-F004). Decrease the appropriation by $25,000 and close the project. Funding source is 2011 GOB Proposition 1.Increase the appropriation for City-wide Lift Station Rehabilitation (13-F003) by $25,000. Funding source is 2011 GOB Proposition 1. Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance 118 of 2013, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of thisordinance 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. 96 OF 2014AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 BUDGET FOR THE MPC SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET, APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED THEREIN, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO.WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to amend the 2014 budget for the MPC Special Revenue Fund,NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, in legalsession convened, that Ordinance 122 of 2013, the MPC Special Revenue Fund, is hereby amended as follows:In Section 2 (Appropriations)Decrease Personnel Services by $20,000.00Increase Contractual Services by $11,000.00Increase Materials and Equipment by $4,000.00Increase Improvements and Equipment by $5,000.00Adjust totals and subtotals accordingly.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the remainder of Ordinance 122 of 2013, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that any provision or item of this ordinance application thereof isheld invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of the ordinance

with 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. 99 OF 2014THIRTY-FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 131 OF 1984ADOPTED ON JUNE 12, 1984, AS AMENDED; ACKNOWLEDGING AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $75,000,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, STATE OF LOUISIANA, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; PLEDGING REVENUES OF THE SYSTEM TO SECURE SUCH BONDS; PRESCRIBING THE FORM, CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport. State of Louisiana (the "City" or "Issuer"), owns and operates a revenue producing public utility composed of a combined waterworks plant and system and sewer plant and system (the "System"); and

WHEREAS, the City adopted Resolution No. 131 of 1984 on June 12, 1984 (the "General Bond Resolution"), authorizing the issuance from time to time of Water and Sewer Revenue Bondsand the pledge of Revenues derived from the operation of the System under the terms and conditions set forth in the General Bond Resolution; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Part XIII, Chapter 4, Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of1950, as amended (La. R.S. 39:1011 to 1025 inclusive) and other constitutional and statutory authority (the “Act”) and a public hearing to be held on October 14, 2014 pursuant to a Notice of Intention to issue bonds and the aforesaid General Bond Resolution, it is the desire of this City Council of the City (the “Governing Authority”) to provide for the issuance of not exceeding $75,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, in one or more series of the Issuer (the “Bonds”), for the purposes of (i) financing the acquisition and construction of improvements, extensions and replacements to the System of the City, (ii) funding a debt service reserve fund, and (iii) paying thecosts of issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Issuer currently has outstanding obligations issued pursuant to the General Bond Resolution, as amended, which are payable from a pledge and dedication of the Revenues derived from the operation of the System but has sufficient Revenues from the System topay the bonds proposed by this Supplemental Ordinance (as defined herein), in accordance with their proposed terms and conditions as well as pay all other outstanding notes, bonds or other obligations which are secured by a pledge of the Revenues derived from the operation of the System, in accordance with their respective terms and conditions; andWHEREAS, it is now the desire of this Governing Authority to authorize the issuance of the Bonds as provided for in the Act for the purpose of financing the Project; subject to the approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Louisiana State Bond Commission;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Governing Authority of the City, that:ARTICLE IDefinitions, Findings and Interpretation

Section 101. Definitions. Unless the context shall clearly indicate some other meaning, all words and terms used in this Thirty-First Supplemental Ordinance (this “Supplemental Ordinance”), and not clearly defined in General Bond Resolution for all purposes of this Supplemental Ordinance, shall have the respective meanings given to them in the General Bond Resolution. In addition, unless the context shall clearly indicate some other meaning, the following terms shall, for all purposes of this Supplemental Ordinance or of any resolution or otherinstrument amendatory hereof, or supplemental hereto, have the following meanings:

"Act" means Part XIII, Chapter 4, Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended (La. R.S. 39:1011 to 1025, inclusive) and other constitutional and statutory authority.

"Bond Counsel" means The Boles Law Firm, APC of Monroe, Louisiana and Washington and Wells, LLC of Shreveport, Louisiana as Co-Bond Counsel."Bond Purchase Agreement" means the agreement between the Issuer and the Underwriters withrespect to the purchase of the Bonds."Bond Register" means the records kept by the Paying Agent at its principal office in which registration of the Bonds and transfers of the Bonds shall be made as provided herein."Bonds" means the Issuer’s not to exceed $75,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, authorized to be issued by this Supplemental Ordinance and, particularly, Article II hereof.

"Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as the same may be amended and supplemented from time to time, including any regulations promulgated thereunder or any administrative or judicial interpretations thereof.

"Delivery Date" means the date on which the Bonds are delivered."Executive Officers" means the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of

Finance, Clerk and other such officials of the City individually and/or collectively."General Bond Resolution" means the General Bond Resolution described in the

preambles hereof."Outstanding Prior Lien Bonds" means the City’s Water and Sewer Bonds, Series

2001A, 2001B, 2001C, 2002A, 2002B, 2003A, 2003B, 2003A Refunding, 2003B Refunding, 2003C Refunding, 2004A, 2005 LCDA Bonds and 2006A Refunding, LCDA 2007, 2009A, 2009B, 2010C, 2010D, Series 2013, and Series 2013 DEQ Bonds.

"Paying Agent" with respect to the Bonds means Regions Bank, Baton Rouge, Louisiana unless and until a successor Paying Agent shall have assumed such responsibilities.

"Project" shall have the meaning set forth in the third preamble paragraph in this Supplemental Ordinance.

"Supplemental Ordinance" shall mean this Thirty-First Supplemental Ordinance, as the same may be supplemented and amended hereafter.

"Underwriters" shall mean Siebert, Brandford Shank & Co., LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC and Stephens Inc.

Unless or except as the context shall clearly indicate otherwise or may otherwise require in this Supplemental Ordinance: (i) all references to a particular section, paragraph or subdivision of the General Bond Resolution or this Supplemental Ordinance, as the case may be, are to the corresponding section, paragraph, or subdivision of the General Bond Resolution only, or this Supplemental Ordinance only, as the case may be; (ii) the terms "herein", "hereunder", "hereby", "hereto", "hereof", and any similar terms, refer to the General Bond Resolution or this

Supplemental Ordinance, in each case as a whole and not to any particular section, paragraph or subdivision thereof; (iii) the terms "therein", "thereunder", "thereby", "thereto", "thereof", and any similar terms, refer to the General Bond Resolution, or this Supplemental Ordinance in each case as a whole and not to any particular section, paragraph or subdivision thereof; and, (iv) the term "heretofore" means before the time of effectiveness of this Supplemental Ordinance, and the term "hereafter" means after the time of the effectiveness of this Supplemental Ordinance.

Section 102. Covenants and Determinations. The Governing Authority hereby covenants and determines that:

(a) The Bonds, when issued, shall constitute Prior Lien Bonds as provided in the General Bond Resolution, as amended.

(b) The conditions of Section 205 of the General Bond Resolution are contained and satisfied in Article II hereof.

Section 103. Interpretation. This Supplemental Ordinance, unless the context otherwiserequires, (a) words importing persons includes firms, associations and corporations, (b) words importing the singular include the plural and vice versa, and, (c) words of the masculine gender shall be deemed and considered to include correlative words of the feminine and neuter genders.

Section 104. Rate Covenant. The City does hereby ratify and confirm SECTION 705. Rates and Charges. of the General Bond Resolution, which, as described therein, obligates the Cityto fix and collect certain rates and charges for all water and sewage services.ARTICLE IIAuthorization and Details of the Bonds

Section 201. Authorization and Designation; Purpose. Subject to the approval of the Louisiana State Bond Commission, the City hereby acknowledges and approves the Bonds to be issued. The proceeds of such Bonds will be used to finance the Project. The Bonds, together with other Outstanding Prior Lien Bonds, are payable as to both principal, interest and premium, if any, and shall be secured by a pledge and dedication of the Revenues to be derived from the operation of the System, subject to the prior payment of the reasonable and necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of the System.

Section 202. Principal Amount and Type; Interest Rate; Maturity. The Bonds shall be issued as fully registered bonds, numbered R-1 and upward, in the principal amount of not exceeding Seventy-Five Million Dollars ($75,000,000) and shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A” together with such changes as Bond Counsel deems advisable. The term of the Bonds shall not exceed twenty-five (25) years from the date of issuance and shall bear interest at a 

rate not to exceed six percent (6.00%) per annum with semi annual interest payments on June 1 and December 1 of each year commencing June 1, 2015 and annual payments of principal beginning December 1, 2015. The Bonds shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof. The Bonds shall be executed in the manner provided for in SECTION 310 of the General Bond Resolution or by any such designated Executive Officers of the City.

Section 203. Other Details of the Bonds. (a) Regions Bank of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, shall be the initial Paying Agent for the Bonds. The principal, interest and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable by check mailed to the Paying Agent at the address shown on the Bond Register kept by the Paying Agent, or by wire transfer, for such purpose, provided that payment of the final installment of the principal of the Bonds shall be made only upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds to the Paying Agent.

(b) The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity in the manner set forth in the Bonds.

(c) Any “Invested Sinking Fund Payments” within the meaning of the General Bond Resolution shall be as set forth in the Bonds.

(d) The Bonds are not being designated as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.

(f) The Issuer will be required to comply with the continuing disclosure requirements described in Rule 15c2-12b of the Securities and Exchange Commission (17CFR Section 240.15c212b) (the “Rule”) and will execute a Continuing Disclosure Certificate in conjunction therewith at closing.ARTICLE IIISale of the Bonds/Bond Purchase Agreement

Section 301. Sale of the Bonds. The sale of the Bonds by the Issuer to the Underwriters is hereby in all respects approved, ratified and confirmed and the City hereby requests the Bonds tobe delivered to the Underwriters or their agents or assigns, upon receipt of the agreed purchase price. Section 302. Bond Purchase Agreement. The execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement on behalf of the Issuer by one or more of the Executive Officers is hereby authorized and approved within the parameters set forth in Section 202 hereof. Section 303. Pledge and Dedication of Revenues. The Governing Authority hereby pledges and dedicates the Revenues derived from the operation of the System to secure the Bonds. The Revenues of the System shall be subject to the prior payment of the Operational Expenses (as defined in the General Bond Resolution) of the System. Section 304. Authority to Act. The Executive Officers of the City are each hereby empowered, authorized and directed to do any and all things necessary and incidental to carry out all the provisions of this Supplemental Ordinance, to execute and deliver any documents or documents recommended by Bond Counsel and to cause the Bonds to be prepared and/or printed, to issue, execute and seal the Bonds and to effect delivery thereof. In connection with the issuanceand sale of the Bonds, the Executive Officers of the Issuer are each authorized, empowered and directed to execute or cause to be executed and delivered on behalf of the Issuer such additional documents, certificates and instruments as they deem necessary upon the advice of Bond Counsel, to effect the transactions contemplated by this Supplemental Ordinance and the sale of the Bonds.

ARTICLE IVMiscellaneous

Section 401. Publication of Ordinance. A copy of this Supplemental Ordinance shall be published in the Official Journal of the City.

Section 402. Supplemental Ordinance to Constitute Contract. In consideration of the purchase and the acceptance of the Bonds by the Underwriters, the provisions of this SupplementalOrdinance 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 and the holders of the Bonds. The provisions, covenants and agreements herein set forth to be performed by and on behalf of the Cityshall be for the benefit, protection and security of the holders of any and all of the Bonds.

Section 403. Filing of Ordinance. A certified copy of this Supplemental Ordinance shall be filed and recorded in accordance with SECTION 1210 of the General Bond Resolution.

Section 404. Severability. In case any one or more the provisions of this Supplemental Ordinance shall, for any reason, be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this Supplemental Ordinance and this Supplemental Ordinance shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provisions had not been contained herein or therein.

Section 405. Governing Law. This Supplemental 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.

Section 406. Continuing Disclosure. The Director of Finance of the Issuer is hereby empowered and directed to execute an appropriate Continuing Disclosure Certificate (substantially in the form set forth in the Appendices of the Official Statement issued in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds) pursuant to the Rule.

Section 407. Official Statement. The Governing Authority hereby ratifies, confirms and approves the form and content of the Preliminary Official Statement pertaining to the Bonds submitted to the Governing Authority and hereby ratifies its prior use by the bidders in connection with the sale of the Bonds. The Governing Authority further approves the form and content of the final Official Statement and hereby authorizes and directs one or more of the Executive Officers to execute and deliver such final Official Statement to the Underwriters for use in connection with the sale of the Bonds.

Section 408. Municipal Bond Insurance. If determined to be in the best interest of the City, the Governing Authority hereby approves the purchase of a Bond Insurance Policy with respect to the payments due of principal and interest on the Bonds (the “Bond Insurance Policy”). If a Bond Insurance Policy is issued, it will be on file and available for inspection at the principal office of the Paying Agent. The summary form of policy relating to the Bond Insurance Policy is hereby authorized to appear on Bonds. Under the terms of the Bond Insurance Policy, the bond insurer (to be determined), will pay regularly scheduled payments of principal and interest on the Bonds which are due but unpaid by reason of nonpayment by the Issuer (as such terms are defined in the Bond Insurance Policy).

Section 409. Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy. If determined to be in the best interest of the City, the Governing Authority hereby approves the purchase of a debt service reserve surety policy (the “Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy”). The Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy will, if purchased, provide the sole debt service reserve with respect to the Bonds. Inthe event a Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy is purchased with respect to the Bonds, the holders of the Bonds shall have no claim with respect to the Debt Service Reserve Fund provided for in theGeneral Bond Resolution.

Section 410. Bond Insurer Agreements Approved. Any agreements between the City and the bond insurer with respect to any Bond Insurance Policy and Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy are hereby approved, the same to be executed by the Executive Officers upon advice of Bond Counsel.Section 411. Notices.

To the Issuer:City of Shreveport

Attn: Director of Finance505 Travis StreetShreveport, Louisiana 71101

With Copy to:The Boles Law Firm, APC and Washington & Wells, LLCAttn: William R. Boles, Jr., Esq. 401 Edwards Street1818 Avenue of America Shreveport, Louisiana 71101Monroe, Louisiana 71201

To the Paying Agent:Regions Bank Corporate TrustAttn: John Shiroda, CCTSII City Plaza400 Convention Street, 3rd FloorBaton Rouge, LA 70802To the Rating Agencies:Standard & Poor’s Corporation at Lincoln PlazaSuite 3200, 500 N. AkardDallas, TX 75201

Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.600 North Pearl Street, Suite 2165Dallas, TX 75201To the Bond Insurer:TBD

ORDINANCE NO. 100 OF 2014THIRTY-SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 131 OF 1984ADOPTED ON JUNE 12, 1984, AS AMENDED; ACKNOWLEDGING AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $76,700,000 WATER AND SEWER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, STATE OF LOUISIANA, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; PLEDGING REVENUES OF THE SYSTEM TO SECURE SUCH BONDS; PRESCRIBING THE FORM, CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana (the “City” or “Issuer”) has previously issued its $7,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2001A, $7,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2001B, $5,540,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2001C,$25,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2002A, $13,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2002B, $16,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2003A, $6,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2003B, $16,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2004A and $15,000,000 Louisiana Local Government and Community

Development Authority Utility Revenue Bonds (Shreveport Water Improvement Project), Series 2010C (collectively, the “Current Refundable Bonds”); andWHEREAS, the Louisiana Local Government and Community Development Authority, on behalfof the City has issued its $25,685,000 Revenue Bonds (Shreveport Utility System Project), Series 2007 (the “Advance Refundable Bonds”, and together with the Current Refundable Bonds, the “Prior Bonds”); and WHEREAS, the Prior Bonds were all used to finance the construction, acquisition, improvements,equipment and/or replacements to the combined revenue producing water and sewer utility system of the City (the “System”); andWHEREAS, in order to realize interest cost savings and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14-A of Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended (the “Act”) and other constitutional and statutory authority, the City, governed by the City Council (the “Governing Authority”), desires to authorize the issuance of its not exceeding $76,700,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, in one or more series (the “Bonds”),for the purposes of providing funds to (i) refund all or a part of the Prior Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Act, (ii) fund a debt service reserve fund or reserve fund surety, if necessary;and (iii) pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds, including, if necessary, any costs required to defease the Advance Refundable Bonds, specifically the purchase of defeasance obligations for deposit into an escrow account (collectively, the “Refunding”); subject to the approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Louisiana State Bond Commission;NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Governing Authority of the City that:ARTICLE IDefinitions, Findings and InterpretationSection 101. Definitions. Unless the context shall clearly indicate some other meaning, all words and terms used in this Thirty-Second Supplemental Ordinance (this “Supplemental Ordinance”) and not clearly defined in General Bond Resolution for all purposes of this Supplemental Ordinance, shall have the respective meanings given to them in the General Bond Resolution. In addition, unless the context shall clearly indicate some other meaning, the following terms shall, for all purposes of this Supplemental Ordinance or of any resolution or otherinstrument amendatory hereof, or supplemental hereto, have the following meanings:"Act" means Chapter 14-A of Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended and other constitutional and statutory authority."Bond Counsel" means The Boles Law Firm, APC of Monroe, Louisiana and Washington & Wells, LLC, Shreveport, Louisiana."Bond Purchase Agreement" means the agreement between the Issuer and the Underwriters withrespect to the purchase of the Bonds."Bond Register" means the records kept by the Paying Agent at its principal office in which registration of the Bonds and transfers of the Bonds shall be made as provided herein."Bonds" means the Issuer’s not to exceed $76,700,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, in one or more series, authorized to be issued by this Supplemental Ordinance and, particularly, Article II hereof."Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as the same may be amended and supplemented from time to time, including any regulations promulgated thereunder or any administrative or judicial interpretations thereof."Delivery Date" means the date on which the Bonds are delivered, such date.

"Executive Officers" means the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Finance, Clerk and other such officials of the City individually and/or collectively."General Bond Resolution" means the General Bond Resolution described in the preambles hereof."Outstanding Prior Lien Bonds" means the City’s Water and Sewer Bonds, Series 2001A, 2001B, 2001C, 2002A, 2002B, 2003A, 2003B, 2003A Refunding, 2003B Refunding, 2003C Refunding, 2004A, 2005 LCDA Bonds and 2006A Refunding, LCDA 2007, 2009A, 2009B, 2010C, 2010D, Series 2013, and Series 2013 DEQ Bonds."Paying Agent" with respect to the Bonds means Regions Bank, Baton Rouge, Louisiana unless and until a successor Paying Agent shall have assumed such responsibilities."Refunding" shall have the meaning set forth in the final preamble paragraph in this Supplemental Ordinance."Supplemental Ordinance" shall mean this Thirty-Second Supplemental Ordinance, as the same may be supplemented and amended hereafter."Underwriters" shall mean Sterne Agee and Crews and Associates.Unless or except as the context shall clearly indicate otherwise or may otherwise require in this Supplemental Ordinance: (i) all references to a particular section, paragraph or subdivision of the General Bond Resolution or this Supplemental Ordinance, as the case may be, are to the corresponding section, paragraph, or subdivision of the General Bond Resolution only, or this Supplemental Ordinance only, as the case may be; (ii) the terms "herein", "hereunder", "hereby", "hereto", "hereof", and any similar terms, refer to the General Bond Resolution or this Supplemental Ordinance, in each case as a whole and not to any particular section, paragraph or subdivision thereof; (iii) the terms "therein", "thereunder", "thereby", "thereto", "thereof", and any similar terms, refer to the General Bond Resolution, or this Supplemental Ordinance in each case as a whole and not to any particular section, paragraph or subdivision thereof; and, (iv) the term "heretofore" means before the time of effectiveness of this Supplemental Ordinance, and the term "hereafter" means after the time of the effectiveness of this Supplemental Ordinance.Section 102. Covenants and Determinations. The Governing Authority hereby covenants and determines that:(a) The Bonds, when issued, shall constitute Prior Lien Bonds as provided in the General BondResolution, as amended.(b) The conditions of Section 205 of the General Bond Resolution are contained and satisfied in Article II hereof.Section 103. Interpretation. This Supplemental Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) words importing persons includes firms, associations and corporations, (b) words importing the singular include the plural and vice versa, and, (c) words of the masculine gender shall be deemed and considered to include correlative words of the feminine and neuter genders.Section 104. Rate Covenant. The City does hereby ratify and confirm SECTION 705. Rates and Charges. of the General Bond Resolution, which, as described therein, obligates the City to fix andcollect certain rates and charges for all water and sewage services.ARTICLE IIAuthorization and Details of the BondsSection 201. Authorization and Designation; Purpose. Subject to the approval of the LouisianaState Bond Commission, the City hereby acknowledges and approves the Bonds to be issued. The proceeds of such Bonds will be used to finance the Refunding.

The Bonds, together with other Outstanding Prior Lien Bonds, are payable as to both principal, interest and premium, if any, and shall be secured by a pledge and dedication of the Revenues to be derived from the operation of the System, subject to the prior payment of the reasonable and necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of the System.Section 202. Principal Amount and Type; Interest Rate; Maturity. The Bonds shall be issued as fully registered bonds, numbered R-1 and upward, in the principal amount of not exceeding Seventy-Six Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($76,700,000) and shall be in theform attached hereto as Exhibit “A” together with such changes as Bond Counsel deems advisable.  The term of the Bonds shall not exceed twenty-one (21) years from the date of issuance

and shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed five and fifty one-hundreds percent (5.50%) per annum with semi annual interest payments on June 1 and December 1 of each year commencing June 1, 2015 and annual payments of principal beginning December 1, 2015. The Bonds shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof. The Bonds shall be executed in the manner provided for in SECTION 310 of the General Bond Resolution or by any such designated Executive Officers of the City. Section 203. Other Details of the Bonds. (a) Regions Bank of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, shall be the initial Paying Agent for the Bonds. The principal, interest and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable by check mailed to the Paying Agent at the address shown on the Bond Register kept by the Paying Agent or by wire transfer for such purpose, provided that payment of the final installment of the principal of the Bonds shall be made only upon presentation and surrender of theBonds to the Paying Agent.

(b) The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity in the manner set forth in the Bonds.

(c) Any “Invested Sinking Fund Payments” within the meaning of the General Bond Resolution shall be as set forth in the Bonds.

(d) The Bonds are not being designated as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.

(f) The Issuer will be required to comply with the continuing disclosure requirements described in Rule 15c2-12b of the Securities and Exchange Commission (17CFR Section 240.15c212b) (the “Rule”) and will execute a Continuing Disclosure Certificate in conjunction therewith at closing.ARTICLE IIISale of the Bonds/Bond Purchase AgreementSection 301. Sale of the Bonds. The sale of the Bonds by the Issuer to the Underwriters is hereby in all respects approved, ratified and confirmed and the City hereby requests the Bonds to be delivered to the Underwriters or their agents or assigns, upon receipt of the agreed purchase price. Section 302. Bond Purchase Agreement. The execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement on behalf of the Issuer by one or more of the Executive Officers is hereby authorized and approved within the parameters set forth in Section 202 hereof.Section 303. Pledge and Dedication of Revenues. The Governing Authority hereby pledges anddedicates the Revenues derived from the operation of the System to secure the Bonds. The Revenues of the System shall be subject to the prior payment of the Operational Expenses (as defined in the General Bond Resolution) of the System.

Section 304. Authority to Act. The Executive Officers of the City are each hereby empowered, authorized and directed to do any and all things necessary and incidental to carry out all the provisions of this Supplemental Ordinance, to execute and deliver any documents or documents recommended by Bond Counsel and to cause the Bonds to be prepared and/or printed, to issue, execute and seal the Bonds and to effect delivery thereof. In connection with the issuance and saleof the Bonds, the Executive Officers of the Issuer are each authorized, empowered and directed to execute or cause to be executed and delivered on behalf of the Issuer such additional documents, certificates and instruments as they deem necessary upon the advice of Bond Counsel, to effect the transactions contemplated by this Supplemental Ordinance and the sale of the Bonds.

ARTICLE IVMiscellaneousSection 401. Publication of Ordinance. A copy of this Supplemental Ordinance shall be published in the Official Journal of the City.

Section 402. Supplemental Ordinance to Constitute Contract. In consideration of the purchase and the acceptance of the Bonds by the Underwriters, the provisions of this SupplementalOrdinance 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 and the holders of the Bonds. The provisions, covenants and agreements herein set forth to be performed by and on behalf of the Cityshall be for the benefit, protection and security of the holders of any and all of the Bonds.Section 403. Filing of Ordinance. A certified copy of this Supplemental Ordinance shall be filed and recorded in accordance with SECTION 1210 of the General Bond Resolution.Section 404. Severability. In case any one or more the provisions of this Supplemental Ordinance shall, for any reason, be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this Supplemental Ordinance and this Supplemental Ordinance shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provisions had not been contained herein or therein.Section 405. Governing Law. This Supplemental 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.Section 406. Continuing Disclosure. The Director of Finance of the Issuer is hereby empowered and directed to execute an appropriate Continuing Disclosure Certificate (substantially in the form set forth in the Appendices of the Official Statement issued in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds) pursuant to the Rule.Section 407. Official Statement. The Governing Authority hereby ratifies, confirms and approves the form and content of the Preliminary Official Statement pertaining to the Bonds submitted to the Governing Authority and hereby ratifies its prior use by the bidders in connection with the sale of the Bonds. The Governing Authority further approves the form and content of the final Official Statement and hereby authorizes and directs one or more of the Executive Officers to execute and deliver such final Official Statement to the Underwriters for use in connection with the sale of the Bonds.Section 408. Municipal Bond Insurance. If determined to be in the best interest of the City, the Governing Authority hereby approves the purchase of a Bond Insurance Policy with respect to the payments due of principal and interest on the Bonds (the “Bond Insurance Policy”). If a Bond

Insurance Policy is issued, it will be on file and available for inspection at the principal office of the Paying Agent. The summary form of policy relating to the Bond Insurance Policy is hereby authorized to appear on Bonds. Under the terms of the Bond Insurance Policy, the bond insurer (tobe determined), will pay regularly scheduled payments of principal and interest on the Bonds which are due but unpaid by reason of nonpayment by the Issuer (as such terms are defined in the Bond Insurance Policy). Section 409. Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy. If determined to be in the best interest of the City, the Governing Authority hereby approves the purchase of a debt service reserve surety policy(the “Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy”). The Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy will, if purchased, provide the sole debt service reserve with respect to the Bonds. In the event a Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy is purchased with respect to the Bonds, the holders of the Bonds shall have no claim with respect to the Debt Service Reserve Fund provided for in the General Bond Resolution. Section 410. Bond Insurer Agreements Approved. Any agreements between the City and the bond insurer with respect to any Bond Insurance Policy and Debt Service Reserve Surety Policy are hereby approved, the same to be executed by the Executive Officers upon advice of Bond Counsel.Section 411. Notices.To the Issuer:City of ShreveportAttn: Director of Finance505 Travis StreetShreveport, Louisiana 71101

With Copy to:The Boles Law Firm, APC and Washington & Wells, LLCAttn: William R. Boles, Jr., Esq. 401 Edwards Street1818 Avenue of America Shreveport, Louisiana 71101Monroe, Louisiana 71201

To the Paying Agent:Regions Bank Corporate TrustAttn: John Shiroda, CCTSII City Plaza400 Convention Street, 3rd FloorBaton Rouge, LA 70802

To the Rating Agencies:Standard & Poor”s Corporation at Lincoln PlazaSuite 3200, 500 N. AkardDallas, TX 75201

Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.600 North Pearl Street, Suite 2165Dallas, TX 75201

To the Rating Agencies:TBD

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ORDINANCE NO. 101 OF 2014-Substitute the Ordinance that was introduced on September 23, 2014 with the attached copy ofthe Ordinance________________________________________Explanation of AmendmentsThe following minor changes are made to the Ordinance:-Adds “Principal Payment Date” as a defined term in Section 1 of the Ordinance;--Deletes the phrase “…and the

ORDINANCE NO. 101 of 2014AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE INCURRING OF DEBT AND ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING TWENTY-SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($27,500,000) OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, STATE OF LOUISIANA; PRESCRIBING THE FORM, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID BONDS; DESIGNATING THE DATE, DENOMINATION AND PLACE OF PAYMENT OF SAID BONDS; APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana (the “City” or “Issuer”) has previously issued its $56,675,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2005A (the “Prior Bonds”). The Prior Bonds were used to refinance the bonds issued for the construction, acquisition, improving and equipping the Shreveport Convention Center; and

WHEREAS, in order to realize interest cost savings and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 14-A of Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended (the “Act”) andother constitutional and statutory authority, the City, governed by the City Council (the “Governing Authority”), to provide for the incurring of debt and the issuance of its not exceeding $27,500,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, in one or more series, as regular delivery or delayed delivery bonds (the “Bonds”), for the purpose of providing funds to (i) refund all or part of the Prior Bonds in accordance with the Act; and (ii) pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds (together, the “Refunding”);

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

SECTION 1. Definitions. As used herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context otherwise requires:

"Agreement" means the agreement to be entered into between the Issuer and the Paying Agent pursuant to this Ordinance.

"Bond" means any Bonds of the Issuer authorized to be issued by this Ordinance, whether initially delivered or issued in exchange for, upon transfer of, or in lieu of any Bond previously issued.

"Bond Register" means the records kept by the Paying Agent at its principal office in which registration of the Bonds and transfers of the Bonds shall be made as provided herein.

"Bonds" means the Issuer's General Obligation Refunding Bonds, in one or more series, authorized by this Ordinance, in the total aggregate principal amount not exceeding Twenty-Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($27,500,000).

"City" means the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana."Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended."Escrow Agent" means Regions Bank, in the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana."Escrow Agreement" means the agreement between the Issuer and the Escrow Agent

providing for the payment of the Prior Bonds."Executive Officers" means the Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, the Director of

Finance and/or the Clerk of Council of the Issuer."Governing Authority" means the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana.

"Government Securities" means direct obligations of, or obligations the principal of and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America, which are non-callable prior to their maturity, may be United States Treasury obligations such as the State and Local Government Series and may be in book-entry form.

"Interest Payment Date" means May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing May 1, 2015.

"Issuer" means the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana."Ordinance" means this Ordinance issued with respect to the issuance of not exceeding

Twenty-Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars of General Obligation Refunding Bonds of the City.

"Outstanding" when used with respect to Bonds means, as of the date of determination, all Bonds theretofore issued and delivered under this Ordinance, except:

1. Bonds theretofore canceled by the Paying Agent or delivered to the Paying Agent for cancellation;

2. Bonds for which payment or redemption sufficient funds have been theretofore deposited in trust for the owners of such Bonds, provided that if such Bonds are to be redeemed, irrevocable notice of such redemption has been duly given or provided for pursuant to this Ordinance or waived;

3. Bonds in exchange for or in lieu of which other Bonds have been registered and delivered pursuant to this Ordinance;

4. Bonds alleged to have been mutilated, destroyed, lost or stolen which have been paid as provided in this Ordinance or by law; and

5. Bonds for the payment of the principal (or redemption price, if any) of and interest on which money or Government Securities or both are held in trust with the effect specified in this Ordinance.

"Ordinance" means this ordinance authorizing the issuance of the Bonds, as it may be supplemented and amended.

"Owner" or "Owners" when used with respect to any Bond means the Person in whose name such Bond is registered in the Bond Register.

"Paying Agent" means Regions Bank, in the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, until a successor Paying Agent shall have been appointed pursuant to the applicable provisions of this Ordinance and thereafter "Paying Agent" shall mean such successor Paying Agent.

"Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, joint-stock company, trust, unincorporated organization or government or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

“Prior Bonds” means the City’s $56,675,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2005A. The Prior Bonds were issued by the City for the primary purpose of refinancing the bonds issued for the construction, acquisitions, improving and equipping the Shreveport Convention Center.

"Record Date" for the interest payable on any Interest Payment Date means the 15th calendar day of the month next preceding such Interest Payment Date.

"Underwriters" mean Raymond James Public Finance and IFS Securities, representing the original purchasers of the Bonds.

SECTION 2. Authorization of Bonds, Maturities. In compliance with the terms and provisions of Chapter 14-A of Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950 (the “Act”), as amended and other constitutional and statutory authority, the City of Shreveport, Louisiana (the "Issuer") governed by and acting through its City Council (the "Governing Authority"), and subject to the approval of the Louisiana State Bond Commission, there is hereby authorized the incurring of an indebtedness in an amount not to exceed Twenty-Seven Million Five Hundred Dollars ($27,500,000), for, on behalf of, and in the name of the Issuer, for the purpose of the Refunding. To represent said indebtedness, this Governing Authority does hereby authorize the issuance of not to exceed Twenty-Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($27,500,000) of General Obligation Refunding Bonds, in one or more series, as regular delivery or delayed delivery bonds (the “Bonds”). The Bonds shall be in fully registered form, shall be dated the date of delivery, shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed five percent (5%) per annum and mature no later than five (5) years from the date of their issuance. The Bonds shall be issued in denominations of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) each or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity and shall be numbered from R-1 upward. The unpaid principal of the Bonds shall bear interest from the date thereof or from the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, payable on each Interest Payment Date, commencing May 1, 2015.

The principal of the Bonds, upon maturity or redemption, shall be payable at the principal office of the Paying Agent, upon presentation and surrender thereof, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable by check of the Paying Agent mailed by the Paying Agent to the Owner (determined as of the close of business on the Record Date) at the address shown on the Bond Register. Each Bond delivered under this Ordinance upon transfer of, in exchange for or in lieu of any other Bond shall carry all the rights to interest accrued and unpaid, and to accrue, which were carried by such other Bond, and each such Bond shall bear interest (as herein set forth) so neither gain nor loss in interest shall result from such transfer, exchange or substitution.

No Bond shall be entitled to any right or benefit under this Ordinance, or be valid or obligatory for any purpose, unless there appears on such Bond a certificate of registration, substantially in the form provided in this Ordinance, executed by the Paying Agent by manual signature.

The principal of the Bonds is payable at the principal corporate trust office of Regions Bank, in the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar with respect to the Bonds upon surrender thereof.

Each Bond shall be dated the date of delivery. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the Bonds shall bear interest from the date thereof or from the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, as the case may be. However, when there is no

existing default in the payment of interest on the Bonds, each Bond executed after the Regular Record Date for any Interest Payment Date but prior to such Interest Payment Date, shall bear interest from such Interest Payment Date provided, however, that if and to the extent that the Issuer shall default in the payment of the interest due on any Interest Payment Date, then all such Bonds shall bear interest from the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or duly provided for, unless no interest has been paid on the Bonds, in which case from the date of delivery.

The person in whose name any Bond is registered at the Regular Record Date with respect to an Interest Payment Date shall in all cases be entitled to receive the interest payable on such Interest Payment Date (unless such Bond has been called for redemption on a redemption date which is prior to such Interest Payment Date) notwithstanding the cancellation of such Bond upon any registration of transfer or exchange thereof subsequent to such Regular Record Date and prior to such Interest Payment Date.

SECTION 3. Book-Entry Registration of Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially issued in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), as registered owner of the Bonds, and held in the custody of DTC. The Director of Finance of the Issuer or any other officer of the Issuer is authorized to execute and deliver a Letter of Representation to DTC on behalf of the Issuer with respect to the issuance of the Bonds in "book-entry only" format. The Paying Agent is hereby directed to execute said Letter of Representation. The terms and provisions of said Letter of Representation shall govern in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Ordinance and said Letter of Representation. A single certificate will be issued and delivered to DTC or its designee for each maturity of the Bonds. The beneficial Owners will not receive physical delivery of Bond certificates except as provided herein. The beneficial Owners are expected to receive a written confirmation of their purchase providing details of each Bond acquired. For so long as DTC shall continue to serve as securities depository for the Bonds as provided herein, all transfers of beneficial ownership interest will be made by book-entry only, and no investor or other party purchasing, selling or otherwise transferring beneficial ownership of Bonds is to receive, hold or deliver any Bond certificate.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, while the Bonds are issued in book-entry-only form, the payment of principal and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds may be payable by the Paying Agent by wire transfer to DTC in accordance with the Letter of Representation.

For every transfer and exchange of the Bonds, the beneficial Owner may be charged a sum sufficient to cover such beneficial Owner's allocable share of any tax, fee or other governmental charge that may be imposed in relation thereto.

Bond certificates are required to be delivered to and registered in the name of the beneficial Owner under the following circumstances:

(a) DTC determines to discontinue providing its service with respect to the Bonds. Such a determination may be made at any time by giving 30 days' notice to the Issuer and the Paying Agent and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law.

(b) The Issuer determines that continuation of the system of book-entry transfer through DTC (or a successor securities depository) is not in the best interests of the Issuer and/or the beneficial Owners.

The Issuer and the Paying Agent will recognize DTC or its nominee as the Bondholder for all purposes, including notices and voting.

Neither the Issuer or the Paying Agent are responsible for the performance by DTC of any of its obligations, including, without limitation, the payment of moneys received by DTC, the forwarding of notices received by DTC or the giving of any consent or proxy in lieu of consent.

Whenever during the term of the Bonds the beneficial ownership thereof is determined by a book entry at DTC, the requirements of this Ordinance of holding, delivering or transferring the Bonds shall be deemed modified to require the appropriate person to meet the requirements of DTC as to registering or transferring the book entry to produce the same effect.

If at any time DTC ceases to hold the Bonds, all references herein to DTC shall be of no further force or effect.

SECTION 4. Redemption Provisions. The Bonds shall not be callable for redemption at the option of the Issuer.

SECTION 5. Registration and Transfer. The Issuer shall cause the Bond Register to be kept by the Paying Agent. The Bonds may be transferred, registered and assigned only on the Bond Register, and such registration shall be at the expense of the Issuer. A Bond may be assigned by the execution of an assignment form on the Bond or by other instruments of transfer and assignment acceptable to the Paying Agent. A new Bond or Bonds will be delivered by the Paying Agent to the last assignee (the new Owner) in exchange for such transferred and assigned Bonds after receipt of the Bonds to be transferred in proper form. Such new Bond or Bonds shall be in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity. Neither the Issuer nor the Paying Agent shall be required to issue, register, transfer or exchange any Bond during a period beginning at the opening of business on a Record Date and ending at the close of business on the Interest Payment Date.

SECTION 6. Form of Bonds. The Bonds and the endorsements to appear thereon shall be in substantially the following form of Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, together with such changes as are deemed advisable by Bond Counsel but within the parameters of Section 2 above.

SECTION 7. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be signed by the Executive Officers, or any two of them, for, on behalf of, in the name of and under the corporate seal of the Issuer, and the Legal Opinion Certificate shall be signed by the Clerk of Council of the Issuer, which signatures and corporate seal may be either manual or facsimile. The Executive Officers, or any of them, are hereby empowered, authorized and directed to do any and all things necessary and incidental to carry out all of the provisions of this Ordinance, including but not limited to causing the necessary Bonds to be printed, issuing, executing and sealing the Bonds, and effecting delivery thereof as hereinafter provided.

SECTION 8. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. The Bonds shall constitute general obligations of the Issuer, and the full faith and credit of the Issuer is hereby pledged for their payment. This Governing Authority does hereby obligate itself and is bound under the terms and provisions of law and the election authorizing the Bonds to impose and collect annually in excess of all other taxes a tax on all of the property subject to taxation within the territorial limits of the Issuer sufficient to pay the principal of and the interest on the Bonds falling due each year, said tax to be levied and collected by the same officers, in the same manner and at the same time as other taxes are levied and collected within the territorial limits of the Issuer.

SECTION 9. Escrow Agreement; Application of Proceeds. The Escrow Agreement by and between the Issuer and Regions Bank as Escrow Agent are hereby authorized and approved. The Executive Officers, or any of them, are authorized to execute and deliver such agreement. Proceeds

derived from the sale of the Bonds shall be deposited by the Issuer with Escrow Agent pursuant to the Escrow Agreement and placed in a special and irrevocable escrow designated the Escrow Fund (the "Escrow Fund") to be held in the custody of the Escrow Agent separate and apart from other funds of the Issuer or of the Escrow Agent to be used only for the purpose of payment of Prior Bonds. The Issuer will cause to be deposited with the Escrow Agent proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds. The Escrow Agent will utilize the funds on deposit to purchase non-callable United States Government Obligations - State and Local Government Securities. In the event there is a deficiency in the Escrow Fund, the Escrow Agent shall notify the Issuer of such deficiency, and the Issuer shall immediately remedy such deficiency by paying to the Escrow Agent the amount of such deficiency. The deposit of moneys in the Escrow Fund shall constitute an irrevocable deposit of said moneys exclusively for the benefit of the owners of the Prior Bonds and such moneys, together with any income or interest earned thereon, shall be held in escrow and shall be applied solely to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Prior Bonds on the redemption payment date thereof.

SECTION 10. Bonds Legal Obligations. The Bonds shall constitute legal, binding and valid obligations of the Issuer and shall be the only representations of the indebtedness as herein authorized and created.

SECTION 11. Ordinance a Contract. The provisions of this Ordinance shall constitute a contract between the Issuer, or its successor, and the Owner or Owners from time to time of the Bonds and any such Owner or Owners may at law or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus or other proceedings, enforce and compel the performance of all duties required to be performed by this Governing Authority or the Issuer as a result of issuing the Bonds.

No material modification or amendment of this Ordinance, or of any ordinance amendatory hereof or supplemental hereto, may be made without the consent in writing of the Owners of two-thirds (2/3) of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then outstanding and the written consent of the Bond Insurer; provided, however, that no modification or amendment shall permit a change in the maturity or redemption provisions of the Bonds, or a reduction in the rate of interest thereon, or in the amount of the principal obligation thereof, or affecting the obligation of the Issuer to pay the principal of and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall come due from the taxes pledged and dedicated to the payment thereof by this Ordinance, or reduce the percentage of the Owners required to consent to any material modification or amendment of this Ordinance, without the consent of all of the Owners of the Bonds.

SECTION 12. Severabilitv; Application of Subsequently Enacted Laws. In case any one or more of the provisions of this Ordinance or of the Bonds shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this Ordinance or of the Bonds, but this Ordinance and the Bonds shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provisions had not been contained therein. Any constitutional or statutory provisions enacted after the date of this Ordinance which validate or make legal any provision of this shall be filed with the Paying Agent, but such filing shall not be a condition precedent to the validity of any action taken in reliance upon such waiver.

SECTION 13. Cancellation of Bonds. All Bonds surrendered for payment, redemption, transfer, exchange or replacement, if surrendered to the Paying Agent, shall be promptly canceled by it and, if surrendered to the Issuer, shall be delivered to the Paying Agent and, if not already canceled, shall be promptly canceled by the Paying Agent. The Issuer may at any time deliver to the Paying Agent for cancellation any Bonds previously registered and delivered which the Issuer may have

acquired in any manner whatsoever, and all Bonds so delivered shall be promptly canceled by the Paying Agent. All canceled Bonds held by the Paying Agent shall be disposed of as directed in writing by the Issuer.

SECTION 14. Mutilated. Destroyed. Lost or Stolen Bonds. If (1) any mutilated Bond is surrendered to the Paying Agent, or the Issuer and the Paying Agent receives evidence to its satisfaction of the destruction, loss or theft of any Bond, and (2) there is delivered to the Issuer and the Paying Agent such security or indemnity as may be required by them to save each of them harmless, then, in the absence of notice to the Issuer or the Paying Agent that such Bond has been acquired by a bona fide purchaser, the Issuer shall execute, and upon its request the Paying Agent shall register and deliver, in exchange for or in lieu of any such mutilated, destroyed, lost, or stolen Bond, a new Bond of the same maturity and of like tenor, interest rate and principal amount, bearing a number not contemporaneously outstanding. In case any such mutilated, destroyed, lost or stolen Bond has become or is about to become due and payable, the Issuer in its discretion may, instead of issuing a new Bond, pay such Bond. Upon the issuance of any new Bond under this Section, the Issuer may require the payment by the Owner of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge that may be imposed in relation thereto and any other expenses (including the fees and expenses of the Paying Agent) connected therewith. Every new Bond issued pursuant to this Section in lieu of any mutilated, destroyed, lost or stolen Bond shall constitute a replacement of the prior obligation of the Issuer, whether or not the mutilated, destroyed, lost or stolen Bond shall be at any time enforceable by anyone and shall be entitled to all the benefits of this Ordinance equally and ratably with all other Outstanding Bonds. Any additional procedures set forth in the Agreement, authorized in this Ordinance, shall also be available with respect to mutilated, destroyed, lost or stolen Bonds. The provisions of this Section are exclusive and shall preclude (to the extent lawful) all other rights and remedies with respect to the replacement and payment of mutilated, destroyed, lost or stolen Bonds.

SECTION 15. Discharge of Ordinance; Defeasance. If the Issuer shall pay or cause to be paid, or there shall otherwise be paid to the Owners, the principal (and redemption price, if any) of and interest on the Bonds, at the times and in the manner stipulated in this Ordinance, then the pledge of the money, securities, and funds pledged under this Ordinance and all covenants, agreements, and other obligations of the Issuer to the Owners of the Bonds shall thereupon cease, terminate, and become void and be discharged and satisfied, and the Paying Agent shall pay over or deliver all money held by it under this Ordinance to the Issuer.

Bonds or interest installments for the payment or redemption of which money shall have been set aside and shall be held in trust (through deposit by the Issuer of funds for such payment or redemption or otherwise) at the maturity or redemption date thereof shall be deemed to have been paid within the meaning and with the effect expressed above in this Section, if they have been defeased pursuant to Chapter 14-A of Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, as amended, or any successor provisions thereto.

SECTION 16. Paying Agent; Agreement. The Issuer will at all times maintain a Paying Agent meeting the qualifications hereinafter described for the performance of the duties hereunder for the Bonds. The Executive Officers, or any of them, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver an appropriate agreement with the Paying Agent for and on behalf of the Issuer in such form as may be satisfactory to said officers, the signatures of said officers on such agreement to be conclusive evidence of the due exercise of the authority granted hereunder. The designation of the initial Paying Agent in this Ordinance is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. The Issuer reserves the right to appoint a successor Paying Agent by (a) filing with the Person then performing such

function a certified copy of an ordinance giving notice of the termination of the Agreement and appointing a successor and (b) causing notice to be given to each Owner. Every Paying Agent appointed hereunder shall at all times be a bank organized and doing business under the laws of the United States of America or of any state, authorized under such laws to serve as Paying Agent, and subject to supervision or examination by Federal or State authority.

SECTION 17. Arbitrage. The Issuer covenants and agrees that, to the extent permitted by the laws of the State of Louisiana, it will comply with the requirements of the Code in order to establish, maintain and preserve the exclusion from "gross income" of interest on the Bonds under the Code. The Issuer further covenants and agrees that it will not take any action, fail to take any action, or permit any action within its control to be taken, or permit at any time or times any of the proceeds of the Bonds or any other funds of the Issuer to be used directly or indirectly in any manner, the effect of which would be to cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" or would result in the inclusion of the interest on any of the Bonds in gross income under the Code, including, without limitation, (i) the failure to comply with the limitation on investment of Bond proceeds or (ii) the failure to pay any required rebate of arbitrage earnings to the United States of America or (iii) the use of the proceeds of the Bonds in a manner which would cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds". The Executive Officers, or any of them, are hereby empowered, authorized and directed to take any and all action and to execute and deliver any instrument, document or certificate necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Section.

SECTION 18. Continuing Disclosure. The Director of Finance of the Issuer is hereby empowered and directed to execute an appropriate Continuing Disclosure Certificate (substantially in the form set forth in Appendices of the Official Statement issued in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds) pursuant to S.E.C. Rule 15c2-12(b)(5).

SECTION 19. Sale of Bonds. The sale of the Bonds to the Underwriters is hereby in all respects approved, ratified and confirmed and after their execution, the Bonds shall be delivered to the Underwriter or its agents or assigns, upon receipt by the Issuer of the agreed purchase price.

SECTION 20. Bond Purchase Agreement. The execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement on behalf of the Issuer by one or more of the Executive Officers is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved in all respects.

SECTION 21. Authority to Act. The Executive Officers of the Issuer are each hereby empowered, authorized and directed to execute and deliver or cause to be executed and delivered all documents required to be executed on behalf of the Issuer or deemed by them necessary or advisable to implement or facilitate the sale of the Bonds.

SECTION 22. Official Statement. The Governing Authority hereby approves the form and content of a Preliminary Official Statement pertaining to the Bonds submitted to the Governing Authority and hereby ratifies its prior use by the Underwriters in connection with the sale of the Bonds. The Governing Authority further approves the form and content of the final Official Statement and hereby authorizes and directs one or more of the Executive Officers to execute and deliver such final Official Statement to the Underwriters for use in connection with the public offering of the Bonds.

SECTION 23. Publication. A copy of this Ordinance shall be published immediately after its adoption in one (1) issue of the official journal of the Issuer.

SECTION 24. Section Headines. The headings of the various sections hereof are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions hereof.

ORDINANCE NO. 102 OF 2014AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE CITY’S INTENTION TO ACQUIRE FULL OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES FOR THE SHREVEPORT COMMONS PROJECT AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH RESPECT THERETO

WHEREAS, the City of Shreveport, has a tax interest in the herein below described properties which have been adjudicated for the non-payment of City property taxes, said propertiesbeing more fully described below along with the names of the last known owners of record of the properties; and

WHEREAS, under La. R. S. 47:2236 et. seq. when property has been adjudicated to a political subdivision , the political subdivision may declare by ordinance that is intends to acquire a full ownership interest in the property; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Shreveportin due, regular and legal session convened, that it does hereby declare its intention to acquire the following properties in full ownership:Geographical # Physical

AddressLegal Description Assessed Owner

181437-017-0046-00

41498 None Lot 5, less NE’ly 25 ft., & NE’ly 9.4 ft. of Lot 6, Tally Sub., TAL 6 Shreveport

Shreve Town Corporation

181437-017-0042-00

63095 None Lot 7 & Swly. 35.6 ft. Lot 6, Tally Sub., TAL 6, Shreveport,

GJ. Tax Sale Properties, LLC

181437-040-0009-00

23796 None A lot 41.25 X 100 ft. in TAL 16 Shreveport

Mitchell Foster

181437-045-0044-00

23826 None Lot 44, Haven-Perrin & Zeigler Sub., TAL 17, Shreveport

Judie Johnsonc/o Judie Swan Crow

181437-066-0001-00

23939 None Lot 1, Reynolds Sub., TAL 25,Shreveport

BMR, Incorporated

181437-112-0020-00

710 Louisiana Ave.

SE’ly 60 ft. of Lot 16, Blk. 7, Shreveport

Red Hill Associates, LLC

181437-116-0031-00

823 Louisiana Ave.

A tract of land in Blk. 11, Old Town Shreveport

Alton J. Ogden, Jr.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that in accordance with La. R. S. 47:2236 (B) this ordinance shall be filed with the recorder of mortgages, who shall index the names of the tax debtor and the City of Shreveport as mortgagees.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that in accordance with La. R. S. 47:2236 (C) AND (D), notice shall be given to all persons whose interests the city intends to terminate, and notice shall bepublished in the official journal. Both notices shall state that the tax sale parties (defined by La. R.S. 47:2122) shall have sixty days after the date of the notice, if five years have elapsed from the filing of the tax sale certificate, or six months after the date of notice, it five years have not elapsedfrom the filing of the tax sale certificate, to redeem the property or otherwise challenge the

acquisition in a court of competent jurisdiction.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that in accordance with La. R. S. 47:2236 (E), if the

properties are not redeemed within said time limits, this ordinance shall become operative and the City of Shreveport shall acquire full ownership of the properties, subject only to such rights as determined by a final judgment rendered in an action filed within the time limits set forth above.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that in accordance with La. R. S. 47:2236 (E), the City shall file a notice in the conveyance records indicating that it has acquired full ownership of the properties in compliance with the statute.

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.

ORDINANCE NO. 103 OF 2014AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OFSHREVEPORT – A 32.14-ACRE TRACT OF LAND, LOCATED WEST OF NORRISFERRY ROAD AND SOUTH OF SOUTHERN LOOP LOCATED IN SECTION 29 (T16N-R13W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITHRESPECT THERETO.TAG NO. 14-04WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950 providesfor annexation by petition; andWHEREAS, petitions signed by more than the required percentage in number ofregistered voters and in number of resident property owners and by more than the requiredpercentage in property value of resident owners of the area described below have been filed withthe City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport,Louisiana, the following described property, to wit:TAG NO. 14-04NORRIS FERRY CROSSING SUBDIVISION, UNITS NOS. 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9A tract of land in Section 29, (T16N-R13W), Caddo Parish, Louisiana, beingmore fully described as follows:From a point on the existing City Limits beginning at the southwesterly point ofLot 2, Norris Ferry Crossing, Unit 2B, as recorded in Book 5050, Page 232, of therecords of Caddo Parish, Louisiana;Thence run Northeasterly and Southeasterly along the South line of said Lot 2, tothe southeasterly corner thereof and the southwesterly corner of Lot 87, NorrisFerry Crossing, Unit No. 2, as recorded in Book 4000, Pages 67-71, of the recordsof Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and a point on the existing City Limits line; thencerun Southeasterly along the southern property lines of Lots 87 thru 92;Thence run along the southern property line of Lot 1, Norris Ferry Crossing, UnitNo. 2A, as recorded in Book 4000, Page 143, of the records of Caddo Parish,Louisiana and continuing across the 24.00 foot right-of-way of Crystal CreekDrive and along the south line of said Lot 2, of said subdivision, to the southwestcorner of Lot 95, Norris Ferry Crossing, Unit No. 2, as recorded in Book 4000,Pages 69-71;

Thence run along the southerly property lines of Lots 95 thru 106, then continuealong the southern property line of Lot 107, of said subdivision, a distance of39.77 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 23, Norris Ferry Crossing, Unit No. 1, asrecorded in Book 3500, Pages 158-161, of the records of Caddo Parish,Louisiana;Thence run South along the western property lines of Lots 23 thru 14 andcontinue across Harder’s Crossing Boulevard to the north line of Lot 128, NorrisFerry Crossing, Unit No. 5, as recorded in Book 6000, Page 35, of the records ofCaddo Parish, Louisiana;Thence run East along said north line a distance of 16.60 feet to the northwestcorner of said Lot 128;Thence run South along the east line of said Lot 128 a distance of 120.00 feet tothe southeast corner thereof;Thence run West along the south property lines of Lots 128 thru 132 to thenortheast corner of Lot 142, St. Charles Place Subdivision, Unit No. 6, asrecorded in Book 5000, Page 86, of the records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and apoint on the existing City Limits;Thence run Westerly along the existing City Limits and the north lines of St.Charles Place Subdivision, Unit Nos. 6, 5, 9, 10, & 11, to a point on the north lineof Lot 219 of said St. Charles Place Subdivision, Unit No. 11, as recorded inBook 6050, Page 117, of the records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, being asoutherly projection of the west line of Norris Ferry Crossing, Unit No. 3, asrecorded in Book 5000, Page 241, of the records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana;Thence run North along said projection to the southwest corner of Lot 118 of saidNorris Ferry Crossing, Unit No. 3, and a point on the existing City Limits;Thence run Easterly along the south line of said subdivision and the existing CityLimits to the southeast corner of Lot 117;Thence run North along the existing City Limits to the Point of Beginning.Said tract herein described being 32.14 acres.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City ofShreveport in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the Cityof Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City theabove-described property.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is herebyassigned to Council District “D”.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized tofile, within ten (10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the DistrictCourtfor Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by thisordinance.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized torecord a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for CaddoParish, Louisiana.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or theapplication 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, orapplications 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 inconflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 104 OF 2014AN ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE THE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OFSHREVEPORT – A 14.4-ACRE TRACT OF LAND, LOCATED AT 3142 BERT KOUNSINDUSTRIAL LOOP IN SECTION 5 (T16N-R14W), CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA,AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETO.TAG NO. 14-05WHEREAS, Section 172 of Title 33 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950 providesfor annexation by petition; andWHEREAS, petitions signed by more than the required percentage in number ofregistered voters and in number of resident property owners and by more than the requiredpercentage in property value of resident owners of the area described below have been filed withthe City Council to annex and bring within the corporate limits of the City of Shreveport,Louisiana, the following described property, to wit:TAG NO. 14-053142 BERT KOUNS INDUSTRIAL LOOPLots 1 & 2, L. E. Walker Subdivision, Unit No. 5, as per plat recorded in Book3500, Page 178, of the conveyance records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, andfurther identified by Caddo Parish Tax Assessor’s Geographic Numbers 161405-035-0001-00 and 161405-035-0002-00. Said lots containing 14.4 acres, more orless.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City ofShreveport in due, legal, and regular session convened, that the limits and boundaries of the Cityof Shreveport are hereby changed to include within the limits and boundaries of said City theabove-described property.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the annexed area contained herein be and is herebyassigned to Council District “E”.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized tofile, within ten (10) days of the final passage of this ordinance, with the Clerk of the DistrictCourtfor Caddo Parish a description of the entire boundary of the municipality as changed by thisordinance.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of Council be and is hereby authorized torecord a certified copy of this ordinance in the official records of the District Court for CaddoParish, Louisiana.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or theapplication thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, orapplications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, orapplications 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 inconflict herewith are hereby repealed.

ORDINANCE NO. 106 OF 2014AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE ZONING ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SE CORNER OF JORDAN STREET AND LINE AVENUE SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LA, BY MODIFYING IT TO READ AS FOLLOWS: B-2-E, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT BY ADDING: LIMITED TO “RESIDENTIAL LODGING FACILITY WITH TRANSITIONALHOUSING ON THE THIRD FLOOR” ONLY, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETOSECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, LA, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of the 3rd Floor Only of the building & improvements located on the following property: Lot 5, Mid City Plaza Sub Unit2, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, LA, property located on the SE corner of Jordan Street and Line Avenue, be and the same is hereby modified to read as follows: B-2-E, Neighborhood Business/Extended Use District by adding limited to “residential lodging facility with transitional housing on the third floor” only.SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to compliance with the following stipulations:1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with the site plan submitted showing 15 residential rental units on the first floor and31 residential units on the 2nd floor, per CASE NO. C-54-0523 transitional housing roomsAnd support services for veterans on the third floor.Any significant changes or additions shall require further review and approval by the Planning Commission.2. Floors one and two will have at least 70% of the units leased for no less than one month. The balance (30%) shall be leased for no less duration than one week, An on-site management/security presence (i.e. a resident supervisor or manager) shall be maintained between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. for floors one and two per CASE NO. C-54-05.3. An onsite management presence (i.e. a resident supervisor or manager) shall be maintained on the third floor 24 hours.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. 107 OF 2014AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 106 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FORBING ROAD, 270’ SOUTH OF EMILY STREET, SHREVEPORT, CADDO PARISH, LA, FROM R-1D-E, URBAN ONE-FAMILY

RESIDENCE/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT TO R-1D-E, URBAN ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE/EXTENDED USE DISTRICT LIMITED TO A ”CONTRACTOR’S OFFICE WITH INSIDE STORAGE” ONLY, AND TO OTHERWISE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT THERETOSECTION I: BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, LA, in due, legal and regular session convened, that the zoning classification of .371 acres M/L, Lot 1, Forbing Annex Home Sites Unit 9, Shreveport, Caddo Parish, LA, property located on the west side of Forbing Road, 270’ south of Emily Street, be and the same is hereby changed from R-1D-E, Urban One-Family Residence/Extended Use District to R-1D-E, Urban One-Family Residence/Extended Use District limited to a “contractor’s office with inside storage” only SECTION II: THAT the rezoning of the property described herein is subject to compliance with the following stipulations:1. Development of the property shall be in substantial accord with the site plan submitted with any significant changes or additions requiring further review & approval by the Planning Commission.2. There shall be no outside storage of materials or heavy equipment.3. Hours of operation shall be limited from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if any provision or item of this ordinance or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared severable.BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Tabled Legislation.

1. Ordinance No. 170 of 2012: Amending and reenacting portions of Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances relative to Residential Parking Permit Zones, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto (Tabled December 11, 2012)

2. Ordinance No. 90 of 2013: Amending and reenacting Section 102-47 of the Code of Ordinances relative to insurance required for Vehicles for Hire and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (F/Shyne) (Tabled August 27, 2013)

3. Ordinance No. 12 of 2014: Changing the name of Steeple Chase Plaza Drive to Gregory Kirby Plaza Drive, and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (G/S. Jenkins)

4. Ordinance No. 19 of 2014: Amending the 2014 Water and Sewerage Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

5. Ordinance No. 20 of 2014: Amending the 2014 Community Development Special Revenue Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

6. Ordinance No. 21 of 2014: Amending the 2014 Airport Enterprise Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

7. Ordinance No. 22 of 2014: Amending the 2014 Golf Enterprise Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

8. Ordinance No. 24 of 2014: Amending the 2014 General Fund Budget, appropriating the funds authorized therein, and otherwise providing with respect thereto.

9. Resolution No. 52 of 2014: A resolution amending the Pay Plan for General Classified Employees to provide a one-time lump sum pay increase and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (E/Webb)

10. Ordinance No. 36 of 2014: An ordinance amending and re-enacting Article IV of Chapter30 of the Code of Ordinances relative to fireworks and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (C/O. Jenkins) (Tabled June 10, 2014)

11 Ordinance No. 66 of 2014: An ordinance authorizing an amendment to the agreement andlease with MBI Global, L. L. C., and to otherwise provide with respect thereto. (Tabled July 8, 2014)

11. Appeals

A. Property Standards Appeals

PSD1300218 360 E. 68th Street, Shreveport, LA (C/O. Jenkins) Mr. Daniel Southern, 368 E. 68th Street, Shreveport, LA 71106 (C/O. Jenkins) (Postponed until July 7, 2014 until October 13, 2014)

PSD1300137 1447 Hollywood Avenue, Shreveport, LA (F/Shyne) Ms. Mary Dickens, 6004 Fox Ridge, Shreveport, LA 71129 (G/S. Jenkins) (Postponed until July 7, 2014 until October 13, 2014)

PSD1300253 3640 Del Rio Street, Shreveport, LA (G/S. Jenkins) Mr. Terry Williams, 900 Whispering Lake Drive, Shreveport, LA 71107 (Postponed August 11, 2014)until October 13, 2014)

PSD1300207 1622 Creswell Avenue, Shreveport, LA (B/Everson) Mr. John C. Smith, 224 Cane Bend Drive, Haughton, LA 71037 (Postponed April 7, 2014 until October 13, 2014)

PSD1300040 600 W. 73rd Street, Shreveport, LA (F/Shyne) Mr. James McReynolds 135 Mahaffey Road, Princeton, LA 71067 (Postponed until July 7, 2014 until October 13, 2014)

PSD1300250 3413 Palm Road, Shreveport, LA (F/Shyne) Mr. Herman Pickens, 3812 Scenic Drive, Shreveport, LA 71119 (F/Shyne) (Postponed September 8, 2014 until October 13, 2014)

PSD1400094 2219 Hawkins Street, Shreveport, LA (A/McCulloch) Ms. Gwenda Theus, 2225 Hawkins, Shreveport, LA (71107 (A/McCulloch) (Postponed August 11, 2014 until October 13, 2014)

PSD1400089 3038 Yorktown Drive, Shreveport, LA (A/McCulloch) Mrs. Mattie B. Moore, 334 Phoenix Drive, Shreveport, LA (G/S. Jenkins) (Postponed September 8, 2014 until October 13, 2014)

PSD1400092 3145 Ashton Street, Shreveport, LA (A/McCulloch) Mr. Kelvin Jacobs, 4812 Sanatone Drive, Bossier City, LA 71111 (Postponed September 8, 2014 until October 13, 2014)

CAB1400445 2975 Willie Mayes, Shreveport, LA (A/McCulloch) Mr. Nathaniel Francis, 2975 Willie Mays, Shreveport, LA 71117 (A/McCulloch) (Postponed September 8, 2014 until October 13, 2014)

PSD1000086 2837 Logan Street, Shreveport, LA (G/S. Jenkins) Ms. Carolyn Ivory Wilson, 3646 Del Rio Street, Shreveport, LA 71109 (G/Jenkins) (Postponed September 22, 2014 until February 23, 2015)

PSD1000141 728 Austin Pl, Shreveport, LA (B/Everson) Ms. Deborah Bryant, 9640 Tammy, Shreveport, LA 71106 (Caddo Parish) (Postponed August 25, 2014 until February 23, 2015)

PSD1400022 2806 W. Maple Street, Shreveport, LA (G/S. Jenkins) Mr. Gary Sweatt, P.O. Box 3212, Shreveport, LA (Postponed September 22, 2014 until February 23, 2015 )

PSG1400204 201 E. Columbia Street, Shreveport, LA (B/Everson) Mr. Robin Ryland 720 Linden Street, Shreveport, LA 71104 (B/Everson) (Postponed until August 25, 2014 until October 27, 2014)

PSD1400026 832 Drexel Street, Shreveport, LA (C/O. Jenkins) Mr. Lee Roy Surry, 138 Lilly Road, Benton, LA 71006. (Postponed September 22, 2014 until February 15, 2015)

PSD1200217 6143 Rightway Blvd, Shreveport, LA (F/Shyne) Mr. Joseph Nelson, 1880 Shady Lane, Shreveport, LA 71118 (E/Webb) (Postponed August 25, 2014 until October 27, 2014)

PSD1400065 3815 Cornell Drive, Shreveport, LA (A/McCulloch) Mr. Jessie Watson, P.O. Box 8774, Bossier City, LA 71113 (Postponed September 8, 2014 until November 10, 2014)

PSD1400034 2862 Alkay Street, Shreveport, LA (E/Webb) Mr. James McLeroy 2644 CrosswoodLane, Shreveport, LA 71118 (E/Webb) (Postponed September 8, 2014 until November 10,

2014)

Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance Appeals

Other Appeals

Taxi Appeal:

Mr. Frederico L. Burks, 541 W. 76th Street, Shreveport, LA 71106 (D/Corbin) VIP Services, 6050 Mansfield Road, Shreveport, LA (E/Webb)

SOB Appeal: None.Reports from officers, boards, and committeesClerk's Report

Councilman Shyne: And we had your report on yesterday, I don’t know whether Councilman Oliver Jenkins heard it very well, but I think it was an extensive and a very informative report Mr. Thompson. I do want to commend you.

Councilman O. Jenkins: He commended himself so much that he showed up for work 30 minutes late this morning because I called. So he’s given himself a little vacation for such a good job he did yesterday.

Councilman Shyne: Art, I didn’t know Oliver was going to go there.Mr. Thompson: Well I will definitely defend myself on that one. Mr. Shyne gave me an

assignment. I went over to Mr. Ernie Roberson’s office to try to get addresses for all of the people who are running for Mayor and School Board and that’s where I was when you called.

Councilman Shyne: Oh okay. There you go, there you go. Don’t let Oliver pin you like that.

Councilman O. Jenkins: I’m not going to ask for a signed affidavit.Councilman Shyne: It’s a wonder that Oliver didn’t do that.

The Committee "rises and reports" (reconvenes the regular council meeting)

Motion by Councilman O. Jenkins, seconded by Councilman Corbin to table Ordinance No(s). 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 and 131 of 2014. Motion approved by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen McCulloch, O. Jenkins, Corbin, Webb, Shyne. 5. Nays: 0. Out of the Chamber: Councilmen Everson and S. Jenkins. 2. Absent: 0. Abstentions: 0.

Adjournment: There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 7:22 p.m.

_____________________________________

//S// Joe Shyne, Chairman

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