1 COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA JULY 8, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Shreveport, State of Louisiana, was called to order by Chairman Monty Walford at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 8, 2003, in the Government Chambers in Government Plaza (505 Travis Street). Councilman Jackson led the Invocation. On Roll Call, the following members were Present: Councilmen Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Absent: None. Approve Minutes. Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Jackson to approve the Administrative Conference Summary Minutes of June 23, 2003 and the Council Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2003. Motion approved by the following vote: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None. Awards, Recognition of Distinguished Guests, and Communications of the Mayor Which Are Required By Law. Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel Project Report: Chairman Walford: In reports, yesterday, we had the Convention Center and Convention Center Hotel Project Report and our Property Standards Report. Public Hearings: None. Confirmations and/or Appointments, Adding Legislation to the Agenda and Public Comments. Confirmations and/or Appointments: Motion by Councilman Green, seconded by Councilman Gibson to confirm Jimmy Hewlett and Gene Hicks to the Electrical Board (reappointment). Motion approved by the following vote: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None. Fire and Police Civil Service Board: Richard Lamb III: Councilman Walford: And Mr. Mayor, I understand you want to remove. Motion by Councilman Carmody, seconded by Councilman Green to withdraw the name of Richard Lamb III to the Police and Fire Civil Service Board. Motion approved by the following vote: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None. Adding Legislation to the Agenda. Motion by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Green to add the following to the agenda: 1. Resolution No. 109 of 2003 by Councilman Gibson: A resolution amending Section 1.11 of the City Council Rules of Procedure by adding Subsection (I) relative to Appearances Before the Council and related matters and otherwise providing with respect thereto. 2. Resolution No. 110 of 2003 by Councilman Gibson: A resolution to appoint a committee to explore the feasibility of establishing a metro law enforcement agency and otherwise providing with respect thereto Motion approved by the following vote: Councilman Lester, Walford, Carmody, Gibson, Hogan, Green and Jackson. 7. Nays: None. Public Comments (Agenda Items to Be Adopted): Kevin W. Hammond (415 Texas, Suite 100): Gentlemen, I’m here today on behalf of Richard Carroll and his appeal from the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to deny his 2 application for home occupancy. As you may be aware, this matter seeks to allow Mr. Carroll to make use of his residence as essentially an office for his business. And under the zoning requirements, there are 15 specific criteria that must be met and it was found at the ZBA level that he met 11 of those 15 and there were some recommendations that perhaps we try to come to some sort of stipulations as to the other four. What I’m asking for today is this body to exercise its jurisdiction to either remand or postpone this decision to permit the parties involved to try to come to some resolutions between themselves. We feel strongly that with people being neighbors, everyone’s interest is better served by them sitting down and hopefully come to some sort negotiated resolution to this. It’s essentially a dispute over a parking spot, as I’ve found out since last talking to you Mr. Carmody and there are some other issues regarding advertisements in the telephone book and that sort of thing. But, I’ve talked to Mr. Salvucci today (unclear) and I believe you’ll find that he favors this proposition and also agrees that mediated resolution would be better than having a decision on this matter today. And not to burden you with too much information on this deal, but I would like to point out that Mr. Carroll’s been in this location for nine years. And as you are probably aware, the prescriptive period for non-conforming uses is something in the neighborhood of five years. And so, if the matter is forced to a decision, all that will happen is that we will end up filing suit and everyone will spend a lot of time and money fighting over whether he is allowed to do this. So, I would ask you to exercise your discretion and let the parties try to come to some sort of resolution instead of litigation. Thank you for your time. Councilman Hogan: How long of a postponement did you say you would need? Mr. Hammond: Initially I was comfortable with something in the neighborhood of something of about 30 days. In my conversation with Mr. Salvucci, who you may recall is the President of the Homeowners Association for the properties involved, he actually is out of town during this time of the year and he told me that he would be more comfortable with something along the neighborhood of late September, early October which in my conversations with him, it really sounds like a good idea because it permits us to call a meeting of the Homeowners Association. I’ll be present and answer any questions that we have, get all the parties together and try to come out with a resolution that makes everyone happy. So, rather than the 30-days that I initially thought might be acceptable, it sounds like it works better for the other side to postpone it until October or so. Ken Kreft (157 Archer), President of the Homeowners Association, Broadmoor Neighborhood: This is on the item to be introduced today, not on final passage, correct, to consolidate the Caddo Parish Sheriff and the Shreveport City Police? Councilman Walford: That has been added to the agenda so yes, sir you can go ahead. Mr. Kreft: I’d like to speak generally in support of appointing the group to study the issue to possibly consolidate Caddo Parish, Steve Prator’s office and the Shreveport City Police. I read a nice letter by former Captain Snell yesterday opposing this and certainly there is room for the thought on both sides. I’m unaware of any City-County or City-Parish which has done this which is then gone back on it. I know that Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge managed to do it within our status, did Lafayette and Lafayette Parish in our state and other examples----Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee, Charlotte-Mecklinberg, North Carolina and dozens of others. It may be difficult. It may have some problems, such as civil service with the City and the Sheriff Deputies. But you know gentlemen, about 235 years ago, there were 13 colonies under the article of confederation who got together for constitutional convention and that was very difficult and 3 they pulled it off. You know, we’re pretty difficult. I’m not saying this is a good thing. I don’t know that it’ll save us a nickel. I think that it would. I think a former study showed savings of 8- 12%, but that was years ago and things have changed. All I’m saying is let’s not be afraid to study the issue and if it pans out fine, and if the study is a good one, impartially done and its not a good thing, we could stay together. I like the way the City gets along with the Sheriff. Some of us wish the Sheriff and the Commission got along as well. I mean not always the case that two local governmental bodies see eye to eye on things so, lets at least give this the opportunity to have a serious study. I want to thank Mr. Gibson for coming forward with this idea. John Salvucci (1401 Oden) concerns the case of Mr. Carroll wishing to have a business in his place of occupancy: We have, since the Zoning Board’s time received four (4) more letters from people that are opposed to that and like to get that to the secretary. And that I have talked to–well through, as you know I was out of town in Boston since the middle part of May and I have all he e-mails I received from both Mr. Thompson, Mr. Carmody, Mr. Hammond and that which I’ll turn also for your review of those items. It seems that it was a big confusion as far as the timeframe. I was not in town when we had the final Zoning Board Commission hearing. I asked for the information on that, so that we could find out when they would be going or whether it would be appealed. I was informed it was being appealed June 24th. Subsequent to that, Mr. Carmody was being out of town., they delayed it ‘till today. They said okay, they’ll probably delay it pass that. I asked for a definitive firm date so I would know whether I had to fly in from Boston to be here. I have a City Council Meeting on Thursday outside of Boston that I have to make also. No one was able to give me an answer to this. I didn’t know whether I was supposed to be coming back, whether it was being delayed till today or whether it was being delayed until later on or not. I could not wait up until the last moment. I had to get airline tickets.