SettleTalk.com

It’s a good question.

Let’s start with money paid by Shreveport. Like Bossier City, Bossier Parish and Caddo Parish, the city paid a $50,000 sponsorship.

The city also paid a total $94,329 in overtime wages.

The breakdown is $81,556 for Shreveport police, $3,530 for Shreveport fire department and $9,242 to SPORTRAN.  These amounts do not include charges for gas and maintenance on any city owned vehicles utilized by SPD, SFD or Sportran.  

So that puts city dollars at $144,000.

For comparison purposes Bossier City spent $636 for police overtime and Caddo Sheriff deputies were paid $322 for overtime services.

Stacy Brown, the executive director of the Shreveport-Bossier Convention & Tourist Bureau, estimates that pageant generated the following in revenues to both Shreveport and Bossier:  $530,000 for hotel rooms; $600,000 for meals; $200,000 for retail shopping; and $160,000 for entertainment.

This total estimate is less than $1.49 million dollars.

The contestants stayed at the Margaritaville Hotel and Casino. Many of the activities for these pageant crowd were held in Bossier City, including shopping trips to The Boardwalk.

The sales tax rate in Shreveport is 9.6%. Of this amount 2.75% is remitted to the city. If ALL the meals, shopping and entertainment dollars were spent in Shreveport  (computed from $960,000), the city would have received $26,400 in sales tax revenue.

The hotel motel tax breakdown is .75% for Shreveport. Assuming all the hotel rooms were booked in Shreveport , the hotel revenues ($530,000), would be $3,975 thousand dollars.

So let’s do the math. The city invested $144,000 in pageant sponsorship and expenses. The maximum dollars the city would have received, if all of the estimated pageant expenses where made in Shreveport, is $30,375.

If 60% of these moneys were spent in Shreveport, the total tax revenue for the City would be $23,625.  If 70% of these expenses occurred in Shreveport, the city’s tax revenue would be $27,562.

The Miss Universe pageant also had expenses; these have yet to be reported.  However, estimates for hotel rooms and meals include the Miss Universe staff and crew.

The actual expenses for hotel rooms , receipts, retail shopping, entertainment expenses may be low.   If the estimates are raised to $2 million, the bottom line numbers do not change that much.

It is apparent that Shreveport did not recoup the $50,000 sponsorship fee, much less the overtime expenses.

The average Joe and Judy in Shreveport did not give a tinkers damn about the pageants. And they did not bother to watch the  televised events that many believe are degrading to women.

But Joe and Judy are concerned about crime in Shreveport. 

They wonder what the impact would have been if the $81,556 grand had been spent on extra police patrols, more police investigations of crimes and public safety in general.

Those that follow the Shreveport City Council wonder why the obvious question was not asked when Brown was pitching the platitudes of the pageants when seeking the $50,000 sponsorship. If the pageants were such a great economic boom to Phoenix (Miss Teen USA) and (Miss USA) in Vegas in 2017, why did the pageants come running to Shreveport at virtually the last minute—less than 2 months before the events.

Once the Miss USA numbers are in, there will be some additional tax income to Shreveport. However there is no way these numbers can drive the revenue up to sponsorship fee, much less the overtime wages.

It’s time, no past time, for Shreveport city officials to focus on the city’s needs, not civic wants. Hopefully, a thank you but no thanks will be extended to the pageants in 2019.

Over the past couple of months, the local media, notably local television reporters, have continued to miss key and important parts of a major local story playing out at the two Shreveport airports. 

There are a number of reasons for this. 

The story is complex. 

The person speaking for the Shreveport Airport Authority’s (SAA) side claims to have the support of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) behind him. With those two strikes against them, it is no wonder airport property owners are currently losing in the war of talking heads.

The first media misinterpretation has to do with dirt. 

You may have heard (repeatedly) that a hangar owner at the Downtown Airport (DTN) pays $100 a month for a lease. The airport leaseholders own the hangars, just like anyone would own any building. They bought and paid for them, or built them. 

They pay property taxes to the parish and city, pay for private insurance and ongoing maintenance on their private hangars. 

They pay the Shreveport Airport Authority (SAA) for the dirt the hangars sit on, at a rate of either $.15 or $.19 cents a square foot depending on whether it is a private or commercial lease. Some of them do pay $100 a month for dirt, but others, depending on the size of their lot, pay many times that. 

Local media has aired multiple interviews with Airport Director Henry Thompson in which he states losses at the Downtown Airport were due to years of mismanagement that was documented in a recent FAA audit. He states the tenants should pay for this mismanagement, though the tenants played no role in creating it. 

It has been jokingly alleged that the $150,000 the airport is said to have lost could be easily found in the seat cushions of a couch at the Shreveport Airport Authority. The losses themselves are serious, and getting real numbers are almost impossible. 

The budgets for the two Shreveport airports- Downtown and Shreveport Regional (SHV) are lumped into one budget. There is no way to determine what is being spent where and why. 

A Freedom of Information Act request filed with the SAA by the tenants one month ago for the breakdown of airport expenses has still not been answered. A cursory examination of the airports budget shows large movements of money from airports to other city departments. 

Thompson tells reporters, his 5-member board and whoever else will listen that everything he is doing is being ‘mandated by the FAA.’ That, too, is incorrect. FAA guidelines stress -repeatedly- that the ‘attempt’ should be made. The actual language used by the FAA is ‘should endeavor to…’ This is far different than ‘must.’ 

Thompson uses his ‘FAA mandate’ to threaten tenants of both airports with the taking (reversion) of their private property. He tells them that when a short lease option expires that what is theirs will belong to the SAA and the city. 

This bad business threat has drawn the attention of- and intervention by- the Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce, the North Louisiana Economic Partnership and the Committee of 100. These three entities wrote a letter to the Mayor stating that the SAA’s proposals are bad for business and for Shreveport. They create uncertainty for many businesses that utilize and own property at the two airports. 

Tenants at both DTN and SHV agreed one year ago, after first receiving Thompson’s proposals, to allow a small tenant group to represent their interests. These tenants have waited a year for successful negotiations with SAA. No real progress has been made and time is running out.

Tenants are willing to talk about lease increases. They are not willing to agree to continued uncertainty and accelerated property reversion. This fight promises to be a hot mayoral campaign issue that needs to be settled. The city -and tenants- can return to the business-as-usual that the city needs. If not litigation may be the only reort for the airport tenants.
 

Well, who knows?

Board chairman Theron Jackson sent the following email to other Board members on June 12:

Please let me know if you will be available for a call meeting to discuss the continuation of the contract of the Executive Director. I am anticipating Tuesday, June 26th in the afternoon as the date for this meeting. Please let me know of your availability so that the notice of this meeting can be posted in sufficient time to meet posting requirements. (I will reach of to Mrs. Smith)

Thank you,
Theron

He later sent an email saying the best time for the Board members would be Monday, June 25 either at 3pm or 4pm.

The Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) office advises no meeting has been set. And those that are not in Sweeney’s camp (Ronnie Remedies, Dale Colvin, Alan Young and Bessie Smith) do not know if the meeting has been set.

Executive Director Mark Sweeney’ employment contract expires September 30 unless the MPC Board votes to not extend to it by the end of this month. If that happens, Sweeney will become a regular “at will” MPC employee on September like Shreveport Chief Administrative Officer Brian Crawford and Caddo Parish Administration Dr. Woody Wilson. 

If the Board does not meet by the end of the month—or does not vote to terminate the contract, then Sweeney’s rolls over and he has a contract through September 30, 2019.

Is the MPC playing games with the public about revealing if a special called meeting will be held? The majority of the Board are loyal Sweeney supporters so maybe they are aborting the meeting,

Best way to find out is to contact the “Sweeney Loyal 5”: 
Theron Jackson, 636-6172, Pastortjjackson@aol.com
Nancy Cooper, 205-8809, Nancy.cooper@la.gov
Winzer Andrews, 631-8480, Wrandrews1@att.net
Curtis Joseph, 221-1600, Curtis@wjlawfirm.net
Lea Desmarteau, 222-0885, lea@wellnecessities.net

These five individuals control the MPC Board and thus Sweeney’s contract extension. 

With both the Shreveport City Council and the Caddo Commission considering further t cuts for the MPC in their 2019 budgets, seemingly the Loyal 5 would not be playing games. That has been the modus operandi of this group for quite some time. And in the meantime construction and development in Shreveport continues to stagnate.
 

Steven Jackson has planned a mayoral announcement at Proud Mary’s in the Red River District for this Thursday. Problem is that Proud Mary’s has leased the premises from the city of Shreveport.

And guess what?? The lease clearly prohibits political activities at this establishment.

City Attorney Will Bradford has advised Proud Mary’s of the terms and conditions of the lease. Bradford’s letter clearly states that the planned political announcement by Jackson is a violation of the lease.

It is Bradford’s job to enforce all leases by tenants with the city. Politics aside, his position is merited on the basis of law and public policy. 

A big question is whether Proud Mary’s will allow Jackson’s event and risk cancellation of the lease. And if Jackson continues with his plan, what does this say about his character and integrity as a mayoral candidate?

So… the request by Jackson for a prior column “Jackson’s Mayoral Announcement A No Go at Proud Mary’s to be removed from Settletalk.com has no merit. 
 

Let’s hope so!

Buts it’s not that easy to accomplish.

Last month Governor John Bel Edwards signed Senate Bill 316 that allows the state’s 15 riverboat casinos to move onto land. The hitch is that the land-based casino must be within 1200 feet from the designated berth space of each casino.

That means any replacement of a riverboat casino must be within about a quarter mile or four football fields of its current location.

The Gaming Control Board regulates gaming (aka gambling) in Louisiana.

Within the next few months, regulations should be proposed that outline designs, financing, amenities and application procedures for moving a riverboat casino onto land. These rules must go through a series of public hearings before approval. 

The new regulations should be in place by year-end. The new law replaces the current limits of 30,000 square feet of gaming apace per boat with a cap of 2,365 gaming positions. 

A “gaming position” is defined as a seat at a slot machine or a space beside a dice or other table game. Obviously, the regulations must address how the non-slot machine seats are determined.

Historically, the Gaming Board has required significant investment and amenities, such as restaurants and spas, to allow changes in casino licenses. How stringent the regulations for the new land-based casinos will be critical to the actual construction of these facilities

Riverboat gambling raised $419.2 million in taxes and fees in 2107. In comparison, oil and gas severance taxes accounted for $371 million last year. The state’s only land-based casino (Harrah’s New Orleans) contributed $60 million.

The big issue for El Dorado and Sam’s Town will be where to put a land-based facility. 

Unfortunately, the Shreveport Riverfront is crowded with many mixed uses along the Clyde Fant Parkway.

Starting at Lake Street by Sci-port and going north, this stretch includes Riverview Park, Riverview Theatre, and Riverview Hall, the J. Bennett Johnson Waterway Regional Visitor’s Center, the Red River Entertainment District, the Aquarium, public and private parking venues and the two casinos.
To say that that this area is a crowded area with conflicting venues is an understatement. And there is little room for expansion for a land-based casino.

To his credit, Shreveport City Councilman Mike Corbin has identified this challenge. Corbin wants to jump-start a citizens committee to study this riverfront area and make recommendations to the Shreveport City Council to ensure that future growth in this area is “the best use”. The committee should also provide suggestions for expansion of the two riverboats to land facilities. 

The four Bossier casinos (Horseshoe, Boomtown, Diamond Jacks, and Margaritaville) have adjacent land that can accommodate a land-based facility. Shreveport officials should quickly address the need for space that an expansion of El Dorado or Sam’s Town Casinos.
 

Appeared in The Forum June 20

Ever had a dinner party and the guest of honor was a no show?

If so, you can share the sentiments of dozen or so public officials who wanted to discuss Commission funding of sheriff patrols in the city limits.

Nine of the twelve Commissioners, Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator and his top two deputies, a representative of the Shreveport Marshal’s office and numerous Commission officials recently met to discuss a recommendation to the full commission for a July 5 vote.

This meeting was a follow up to a “crime summit” meeting held by Prator that was attended by Shreveport mayor Ollie Tyler, her police chief Alan Crump, Caddo Commissioners Mike Middleton and Louis Johnson, Shreveport Police Department (SPD) Chief  and Caddo Councilmen Jerry Bowman and Willie Bradford.

Several Commissioners were on board with the idea of funding up to $125 grand to Prator to help reduce Shreveport’s spiraling crime rate.

Prator had quoted an estimate for $33 thousand a month for overtime to take over patrols in city areas adjacent to the parish line. This plan would allow Crump to put more boots on the ground in high crime areas.

On June 6, Commissioner Mario Chavez emailed Crump about the meeting. The email subject block was “SPD/Sheriff patrolling”.

“Chief Crump, we are discussing the funding of this operation tomorrow @ our Commission Long Range planning meeting @ 1400. I would like to invite you to get your opinion on this matter….I would appreciate your presence or a representative to attend our meeting to help us understand the SPD stance on this idea….”

Later that day Crump emailed Chavez. “Hello Commissioner Chavez, I am in receipt of your email and I would like to say that I appreciate any help an law enforcement agency can give us within the city limits Shreveport, thanks.”  Crump copied Ollie Tyler, Brian Crawford, William Bradford, and William Goodin.

The committee meeting started at 2 p.m. and ended at 3 p.m.  The Shreveport Police Department did not have anyone in attendance.

Goodin arrived ten minutes after the meeting adjourned.

Later Goodin advised the media that Crump as out of town and that Crump informed Chavez he could not attend the meeting.

Chavez denies any communication by Crump other than the email.

At the Council work session on Monday Tyler lamely attempted to defend the no show by the SPD.

Tyler said several times that she did not ask the Commission for funding. And she made vague references to funding that she was going to re-allocate for the additional crime fighting efforts.

“When they called the meeting for people to show up, we didn’t know they were calling a meeting to develop a plan. The plan has already (been made), we made it.” She did not explain why no one from her administration attended.

Tyler’s explanation was lame at best. Chavez’ email clearly stated that funding, not a plan, was to be the subject of discussion. The actions/inaction of Crump and Tyler clearly sent a message that the assistance of Prater is unwanted.

What Tyler, Crump and the commission do next on the issue of funding sheriff’s patrols in the city is an open question. Tyler has reluctantly admitted that she should have had someone at the meeting.

The Tyler administration’s words about crime (“no worries, crime is trending down”) don’t match the public’s perceptions about crime (“eeck, so much crime!”). And the administration’s actions – failing to seriously acknowledge or even show up for a meeting with the sheriff and commissioners – certainly don’t match the public’s expectations.

Despite managing city operations competency in most areas, Tyler obviously has a blind spot on crime. If she and her police chief don’t ramp up their performance, a concerned public may send her to the house in the November election.

published in The Shreveport Times

Caddo Commissioner had planned to have his mayoral announcement next Thursday at Proud Mary’s restaurant and bar.

The only problem is that leases in the Red River District, which is owned by the City of Shreveport, prohibit political events.

Just a minor detail, sorta like the switched auto plates that were a challenge for Jackson earlier this year.

Jackson, who worked for Glover as an administrative aide, holds himself out as a municipal law expert.

Maybe he should have spent more time looking at the lease rather than trying to solve Shreveport’s crime problems by meeting with a sales rep for a law enforcement vendor.

Mark it down.

The MPC circus is coming back to town this month.

Board chairman Theron Johnson wants to have a “Call Meeting to discuss the continuation of the contract of the Executive Director”. Jackson hopes to round up Board members on June 26.

The last MPC board meeting on June 6 was indeed a circus.

Rancorous comments were exchanged between Jackson and two board members over a failed attempt to add an agenda item. To say the video on the Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission website is an ugly display of civility is an understatement.

This non-elected nine member Board has had a serious split in philosophies since the appointment of Theron Jackson by the Caddo Commission and the appointment of Curtis Joseph by Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler. 

Simply put, five of the nine members would walk the plank into shark infested waters with Sweeney. The other four would line up to push Sweeney and his supporters into the brink.

The contention among the members has increased since the formation of Gateway Development Consortium (GDC) by Jackson, Joseph, and Paul Pratt. GDC is the group that has presented the latest Cross Bayou development proposal.

Clearly Jackson and Joseph have conflicts of interest on any votes affecting GDC. Many believe that they also have conflicts on any votes on major developments that could either enhance their project or compete with it.

The total dysfunction of the MPC Board is exemplified by the employment contract between the MPC Board and the MPC Executive Director Mark Sweeney. Since the MPC is a separate government entity, the contract did not require the approval of the Shreveport City Council nor the Caddo Commission who fund the MPC.

Employment contracts with public employees are virtually unheard of in Louisiana. 

Sweeney’s current contract ends September 30. But it has an automatic rollover provision unless it is “countermanded annually by a vote of the MPC Board, no less than 90 days prior to the anniversary date.” That means any vote to end the contract must be taken by June 30.

Sweeney is a contract employee through the end of September. If the MPC Board votes to terminate his contract, then he will become an employee at will on October 1, like all other public employees in north Louisiana.

The MPC has been under heavy public criticism since the adoption of the Unified Development Code. Additionally, many complaints have been made about Sweeney and his anti-business attitude. The MPC Board itself has been somewhat sheltered from this pressure, although many elected officials point the finger at the Board, and rightly so.

In addition to Jackson and Joseph, the hard line Sweeney supporters include Lea Desmarteau who headed the Board when Sweeney was hired, her BFF Nancy Cooper and Winzner Andrews. The other board members are Ronnie Remedies, Alan Young, Dave Colvin and Bessie Smith. 

The 2018 MPC funding by both the Council and the Commission was reduced from the 2017 budget. Deeper cuts could be made in the 2019 funding. Both the Commission and the Council have discussed setting up internal planning offices. 

How the MPC Board will vote on Sweeney’s contract is an open question. Hopefully many businesses that deal with MPC will contact the board members to express their opinions. Unfortunately, this non-elected group has a major decision to make that could affect development in Shreveport through September of next year.

 

published in The Inquisitor

Mayor Tyler says “crime goes up and down in every city”. That’s not enough.

Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler’s remark at her recent mayoral re-election kickoff about crime going up and down is true. The question is if this is her justification for the seemingly daily shootings.

In a recent interview, Tyler said, “we’re going to bring crime down.” She referenced partnering with their Caddo Parish sheriff, the Caddo district attorney and Louisiana State Police. (This was her first mention of assistance from the state police.)

Tyler also said she wanted more officers patrolling the streets. 

Her goal of hiring 80 new officers this year is unrealistic, if not outlandish. Funding alone is a major problem. Recruitment, screening and training are time consuming. Less than seven months remains in 2018.

Tyler has been under fire for the selection of current Shreveport Police Chief Alan Crump from day one. Crump’s job resume and testing results left much to be desired in the way of being the best qualified to succeed former Chief Willie Shaw.

Crump’s job performance as the Chief has failed to refute those that questioned his qualifications. Additionally, many question the validity of violent crime reports issued by the Shreveport Police Department (SPD).

Reluctantly, Tyler recently sought the assistance of Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator. Despite the initial positive press, no plans have been formalized. 

There has been some discussion among Caddo Parish commissioners about funding Prator for in-city patrols. The earliest an ordinance can be approved is July 5. 

Many causes are cited for violent crime including unemployment, domestic violence, illegal drugs, and a culture of disrespect for human lives.

One challenge is that private citizens have been reluctant to provide information to law enforcement and to testify in court. Tyler has emphasized that citizens need to work with the police to help reduce crime.

Other factors that could be part of the equation is the lack of prosecution, early release of convicted felons, and the ready availability of guns to practically anyone of any age. 

Some on the force cite the increasing number of complaints filed with the Internal Affairs Bureau as a deterrent to aggressive enforcement efforts by officers.

Almost as alarming as the rate of violent crime is the low number of arrests for alleged perpetrators. The police force numbers over 525 officers. Fewer than 170 are on the streets patrolling. Other officers are assigned to investigations, narcotics, field support and administration.

Management of the SPD as well as the morale of the force is clearly a function of the Chief, his top brass and the mayor. Criticizing SPD officers on the beat is counterproductive and certainly not merited. 

There are no easy answers to the public perception of any ever increasing crime wave. The only constant in the current “crime crisis” is Tyler and her hand picked police chief, Crump.

Rather than passing the buck, Tyler should get a Harry Truman “the buck stops here” desk sign. This would be much better than making trite statements about variations in crime.

Yes, Virginia it is an election year in Shreveport.

And yes, current mayor Ollie Tyler is running for re-election.

Maybe that explains her recent pie in the sky statement. Tyler wants to hire 80 new police officers this year.

That’s is a tall order, considering many factors.

Lets start with money.

The starting salary of a rookie officer is a tad under 34 grand. 

This means 80 officers will cost the city $2.72 million a year. Let’s just say they all start 1 July—which cuts down the needed bucks to $1.36 million for the remainder of the year.

At the last look the 2018 Shreveport budget did not have a surplus. 

And in fact the Caddo Commission is being asked to help fund patrols by Caddo sheriff deputies within the Shreveport city limits.

Then there is the issue of recruiting new officers and the needed screening before hiring. 

Rookies must go to a 16 week academy. And then there is field training under the supervision of another officer.
The estimated time frame from running employment ad to putting green officers on the street is a minimum of 12 months. Hmm… there is less than 7 months left in 2018.

And then there is the constant attrition of officers leaving the force.

Some retire, others find better paying jobs, and some are fired. Four officers left the SPD in the last 2 weeks.

Thus a magical hiring of 80 new officers will not translate into 80 more cops patrolling the streets. Just a minor detail, but a reality.

Tyler and other mayoral candidates should not give Shreveport citizens false hope by promising magic bullets to reduce Shreveport crime, especially violent crime. 

And speaking of bullets, they keep flying on Shreveport streets. 

Tyler’s hiring goal is not only outlandish, but really sad. Seemingly no real progress has been made to control crime despite assurances from city hall. 

No doubt the crime discussion will dominate this year’s mayor’s race—and well it should. Little good that will do to the victims of this continuing tragedy.