SettleTalk.com

Much to the chagrin of the wireless technology business community, Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler is determined to introduce ordinances that many believe have not been fully vetted. The 80 pages (plus) of new ordinances will regulate the installation and operation of wireless technology facilities (WTFs), commonly referred to as cell towers.

The industry stakeholders were emailed a second draft of the proposals after hours on Thursday Feb 2. This left very little time to analyze this information before a 10:00 AM conference on Monday Feb 5.

It was apparent from the “get go” that the stakeholder meeting was a “check the box” charade. 

Over twenty people, including representatives from Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and SWEPCO, were herded into a small, hot cramped conference room. Shreveport contract attorney Julie Lafargue chaired the meeting, and ran it like she was an army drill sergeant.

Lafargue made it very clear that the City was going to proceed, come hell or high water, with the introduction of the three ordinances on Tuesday Feb 13. She stated that very little would be changed from the drafts, other than correction of obvious inconsistencies.

Lafargue did acknowledge that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established stringent restrictions on regulation of WTFs by municipalities.  Guidelines for cell towers must be “reasonable” and that all charges imposed by municipalities must be reflective of the actual costs incurred.

Seemingly these FCC mandates were not taken seriously by Lafargue and the city attorney office. The complexity of the permit process, the fees to be charged and the restrictions on the size, shape, and appearance of the WTFs were, for the large part, very “unreasonable” by industry standards.

Verizon had five out of town representatives at the stakeholder meeting. The lead spokesman made it very, very clear that Verizon would not expand its cell towers in Shreveport if the proposed ordinances were enacted. AT&T reps mirrored this position.

Many other concerns were voiced by those in attendance from other companies. Very few of their comments were given much consideration by Lafargue or assistant city attorney Karen Strand.

City Attorney William Bradford insists that the ordinances must be adopted this month. Bradford’s timeline is very unrealistic, to say the least.

Any ordinance must “lay over” for two weeks before adoption. No doubt the Council or the Infrastructure Committee will conduct a public hearing on the ordinances. It  can be expected that the concerns of the wireless carriers will be given more than just the time of day by the Council.

Bradford maintains that urgency is necessary because the city presently does not have ordinances to govern the size, location, aesthetics and safety features of WTFs. He says that the Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) and the City “have been inundated with requests for new cell towers, modifications to existing towers, and placement of fiber in the city rights of way.”

Tyler is running for re-election this fall. So are four of the seven Council members. Tyler’s motivation in dumping on the Council a complex, complicated and highly contested ordinance package smells of election politics more than good government. Unfortunately, the Council will be stuck with wading through these stringent regulations that should be carefully analyzed, clarified and adopted before approval. It’s a big burden on the seven part time elected officials who do not have as much staff support as the City has dedicated to this effort. 

BRADFORD ADVISED ON THURSDAY, FEB 8 THAT THE ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION WILL BE DELAYED. 

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to use my name. 

It’s a question that Shreveport Mayor Ollie Tyler needs to answer.

With much fanfare and hoopla, Tyler announced in September 2016 that her administration had landed a big fish in the terms of economic development for the Shreveport river front–an aquarium for the Barnwell. 

Planet Aqua Group (PAG), a newly formed company with no (repeat NO) prior business experience in building or operating an aquarium, was the new tenant for the deserted Barnwell Center.

PAG signed a lease with the City of Shreveport in December 2016. The lease, which is for $100 a month, expires at the end of 2031. The lease requires PAG to spend a minimum of $2.5 million for construction of the aquarium. PAG is also required to pay the utilities and pay for all building maintenance.

The city provided $1.5 million dollars from a 2011 bond issue to pay for basic improvements to the Barnwell.

Construction began in January 2017. The planned opening date was September 2 with thirty-two new hires. 

In August 2017 Sci-Port announced it would close on Labor Day. Seventy-two employees lost their jobs. 

Many of the Sci-Port crowd were hired by PAG. They left Sci-Port hoping to just walk down the street and not miss a paycheck.

And some of the other PAG hires quit other jobs to start work at the aquarium. 

The aquarium did not open until November 1. Those expecting to be on the PAG payroll on September 2 were left in the lurch.

The aquarium announced 55,000 plus visitors in November and December . If all were children ($8 per admittance), gross revenues for those two months should have exceeded $440,000. 

Liens totaling more than $300,000 have been filed for unpaid construction costs and expenses for the aquarium. (Most of these companies are local.)

The aquarium is still open, generating ticket revenues. 

PAG is a for-profit company. Thus the Louisiana Public Records Act does not apply. PAG has refused to release detailed information on its operations, revenues, plans for paying bills, etc. 

Paragraph 19 of the lease requires PAG to “keep the Leased Premises free from all levees, liens, attachments, encumbrances or claims.” PAG is required to either discharge the lien or affirm its release by posting an appropriate  bond. 

To date, the liens have not been fully paid. Additionally, the liens have not been discharged or bonded off. 

It’s time, no actually past time, for the Tyler administration to enforce the lease with the aquarium. The city should force PAG to discharge or bond off the liens. 

In the alternative, the city should cancel the lease. Additionally, PAG should be required to give a full and public accounting to the Mayor and Council in a public hearing. 

The sad plight of the aquarium, as well as the closed Sci-Port which occupies a city owned building, will be campaign issues in the upcoming Mayor and  Council elections this year. 

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

Like it or not, gaming in Louisiana is big business. And especially in Shreveport- Bossier.

And like it or not, increased competition from Texas, Mississippi and Arkansas is threatening to further injure, if not eventually kill, the golden goose that gaming represents.

Louisiana casino revenues in 2016 were $916 million. In comparison, mineral revenues for 2016 were $581 million. (Total 2017 revenue numbers are not yet available.)

The casino industry wants an expansion of the gaming revenues and tax relief to remain competitive.

Specifically, the casinos want to get off the riverboats and operate on land—near a waterway but on dry land. Current law requires all gambling to take place over water and in a riverboat.

Casinos also want more space for more slot machines and gaming tables. 

Current law limits gambling space to 30,000 square feet. To expand their customer base casinos want larger slot machines , more comfortable chairs and more bells and whistles.

And lastly, the casinos want a tax break on promotional free play cards that are used to get customers in the doors. Currently the “free money” is taxed at twenty-one percent.

The casino industry will not ask the legislature to license more casinos—which currently is capped at fifteen.

Additionally online sports betting and other expansions of the gaming industry probably will not be proposed in hopes of not alienating the “church opposition.”

Much like the semantics used to initially legalize gambling by calling the industry “gaming”, the legislative amendments are being characterized as “modernizing” versus “expansion.”

On the local front, Bossier Chamber of Commerce president Lisa Johnson, Greater Bossier Economic Development Foundation executive director Rocky Rockett and Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce President Tim Magner all made a sales pitch to the Riverboat Economic Development and Gaming Task Force in December 2016.

Collectively they emphasized the importance of gaming to the Shreveport and Bossier economies. They also stressed the need to update the gaming laws that have been on the books for twenty-two years. 

The local officials acknowledged that gaming is generating less money due to limitations on gaming space, the high tax rate and failures to upgrade to compete with other markets. 

Locally 6,000 people are employed by the casinos. There is also a large number of local businesses that provide both services and supplies to the casinos. 

Much like the loss of AT&T, the General Motors plant, General Electric and Gould Battery, the local casinos will need to become more competitive to survive in this market. And like the economic blows these closures dealt to the local economy, the casinos are now on the endangered species list. 

It’s not rocket science to understand the need to update the gaming laws. Hopefully “church politics” will not overlook the importance of the casinos to the local economy. With Louisiana’s continuing fiscal crises, no one can logically oppose these requested changes. 

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

The city of Shreveport is in the early stages of preparing an ordinance to regulate wireless telecommunications facilities, commonly referred to as small cell facilities. The briefing for the Council’s Infrastructure Committee indicated that the City will probably introduce an ordinance that is much greater in scope than other Louisiana cities.

Wireless facility ordinances have been adopted in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Lafayette and recently Bossier City.

And if this sounds vaguely familiar, one need only look to the much-heralded Unified Development Code (UDC) enacted last year by the Shreveport City Council. Lauded to be an easy to read and follow economic development tool, the Shreveport UDC has proven to be a complex, timely and costly development/zoning code. 

The Shreveport-Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) regulates the UDC, which is another problem in and of itself. To say the MPC has been “user-friendly” will be a gross misstatement if not outright total misrepresentation.

The Shreveport UDC and the Shreveport-Caddo MPC have not leveled the playing field for businesses looking to Shreveport versus Bossier. Early indications are the wireless facility ordinance could also be a business damper versus an incentive for Shreveport.

The presentation by the City of the need for this ordinance resembled in many ways the initial sales pitch for the ill fated sports arena.

City attorney William Bradford gave opening remarks. Then assistant city attorney Karen Strand and outside counsel Julie Lafargue moderated a power point presentation. 

Thereafter several representatives of wireless carriers spoke to the Council emphasizing the need for small cell facilities in Shreveport.

The concluding speaker was a wireless consultant working with the City to develop the small cell ordinance. He also had a power point presentation.

The consultant advised that Shreveport has had a 100,000 device increase in wireless traffic in the last five years. He indicated that the large (macro) cellular towers were becoming maxed out and would soon be unable to handle the wireless demand.

He also indicated that in the not too distant future each city block in Shreveport would need a small cell facility. Large condo/townhouse developments as well as apartment complexes would need additional facilities.

Bradford also advised that MPC staffer Adam Bailey was assisting in this project.

The City proposed an interim application process for small cell facilities in November of last year. The resolution was circulated among wireless carriers. It was later withdrawn after the City decided to proceed with preparing a specific ordinance.

The carriers submitted a written report that pointed out several perceived problems, including the proposed fees. A model ordinance accompanied their written comments.

Bossier has a $500 maximum application fee for each small wireless facility.  The  application for each wireless support structure or attachment to a city owned pole is $1,000.00.

The city’s initial draft ordinance proposed the following: application fee $1,000, $5,000 for MPC conditional use permit, $2,500 fee for modifications and a $8,500 expert deposit.

Bossier does not require an application to be reviewed  or approved by the Bossier MPC.

Hopefully the city will not propose an ordinance that deviates substantially from those adopted by Louisiana cities and the “model” ordinance. Shreveport already has a UDC that seemingly was drafted for a high income, highly developed city with many bells and whistles (think Carmel, California) that imposes many expensive requirements not reflective of Shreveport and its business climate.

The 300 page (plus) UDC was difficult to analyze much less digest. And perhaps too much reliance was made on the MPC executive director Mark Sweeney rather than confidential input from the stakeholders, many of who were reluctant to openly oppose the UDC for fear of future retribution by the MPC staff.

The model ordinance submitted by the wireless carriers was only ten pages, and it is written in a fairly easy to understand format. It provides a good template to compare with what will soon be presented to the City Council and the general public.

Early indications for a user friendly ordinance for the wireless carriers are not good. The city previously adopted a Lyft/Uber ordinance that was too onerous. Not until the ordinance was amended did Lyft open for business in Shreveport. Seemingly the requirement of MPC approval should not be included in the ordinance or any other provisions substantially differing from those on the books in other cities.

Feel free to share this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name.

Steven Jackson has just finished up serving as the Caddo Commission president for 2017. He is now considering a run for Shreveport mayor this year.

Seemingly Jackson has been reading to much of his own press statements and not dealing with reality.

Jackson’s tenure as Commission president was spotty, to say the least. 

He started his service on the Commission in 2016 as a progressive representative. Having been elected in a contested election as Commission vice president, he voted with his supporters (the six white commissioners) on stopping the retirement plan for Commissioners as well as subsidized health insurance. He also voted to limit travel expenses of Commissioners. 

During his term last year as “the prez”, Jackson became more and more autocratic with each month. He developed an annoying and distracting habit of always having the last (very extended) word on each serious Commission discussion.

Having worked in former Mayor Cedric Glover’s office, Jackson took on an air of being a government expert. Much of his input on many ideas was reflective of city programs, not Commission/parish issues. Such is the case of his effort to establish a housing trust fund for the Parish.

Jackson literally took over the committee meetings that determined grants by the Parish of over $1 million dollars from the riverboat fund to various non profit agencies and groups. The committee chairman Jerald Bowman was constantly over ridden by Jackson during the meetings.

Jackson also pushed their awards to groups that had failed to properly file grant applications. Most of these were to African American groups.

During these meetings Jackson was also intolerant of questions by Commissioners Louis Johnson and Mike Middleton. Flexing his “president muscles”, he arbitrarily kicked these two Commissioners off of the Committee before the final funding votes. This action was unprecedented.

Jackson also attempted to railroad the recommendation of the subcommittee studying the fate of the Confederate memorial. He later voted to have the memorial removed.

After one committee meeting in early December he attempted to recruit another Commissioner to take over a Louis Johnson chaired committee so he could fire Johnson.

Jackson also became very critical of the media, and on many occasions criticized reporting (about him) during Commission meetings. Seemingly if anything was published not to his liking, the report was inaccurate and/or bias.

Jackson openly acknowledges that he is a protégé of Glover, and has praised him as his mentor. Jackson’s public comments to the media became more and more “Gloveresque” during the year.

And once the United Daughters of the Confederacy filed suit over the Commission removal vote, Jackson became, in his own mind, a de facto legal expert on the litigation issues. Many believe that his information source was from another one of his mentors, former councilman Calvin Lester.

During the last half of 2017, Jackson took advantage of every opportunity for make photo ops and public appearances that were more mayoral in character than parish business. And it was during that interval that he became less tolerant of Commission disagreement with his agenda.

During 2017 Jackson also had legal challenges concerning switched plates on vehicles that he purchased for re-sale. His explanations were pathetic, blaming a witch hunt by Shreveport Police and his failure due to pressing Commission business.

Jackson’s political immaturity is a definite liability for him if he qualifies for mayor. Additionally his lock step association with Glover and Lester will create many challenges for him. And those that study his politically motivated antics as president of the Commission will also have plenty of questions for Jackson.

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name. 

Once again, the Shreveport Aquarium is in the news—in a bad way.

Another subcontractor of Wieland-Davco, the general contractor for the Planet Aqua Group which operates the aquarium, has filed a lien on the aquarium construction.

Now eight companies have filed liens for unpaid bills totaling $324 grand. How many more liens will be filed is an open question.

The city of Shreveport and the Planet Aqua Group announced in September of 2016 that the aquarium would be constructed in the city-owned Barnwell Center. 

Construction did not start until January of last year. The city provided funds from a 2011 bond fund to pay for basic improvements to the Barnwell, including HVAC updates.

The aquarium had an announced opening date of Labor Day, with a promised job hire of thirty-two full time and part time employees.

The opening date was pushed back to November. Planet Aqua gave different reasons for the delay.

While the city was waiting for the much heralded addition to the river front, Sci-Port closed. Seventy-two people lost their jobs. Many hoped to immediately segue down the street to the aquarium.

Those hoping to go from one venue to the next, without missing any work, were in effect left on the street for over two months waiting for the aquarium to open. The same was the fate of others who had been hired for Labor Day aquarium opening, many of whom had quit other jobs.

The restaurant opened by Planet Aqua in the Barnwell, SALT, has been a failure. Although the patio area has a great view of the river, the food has been inconsistent and over priced.

The manager left for greener pastures after a very short tenure. Recently the entire bar and wait staff were summarily fired and replaced by lower paid workers.

Planet Aquarium reported in the first month opened (November) visitor attendance of almost 28,000. Many question this number.

This number equates to over 900 visitors for each of thirty days in the month or well over 100 per hour for each of the thirty days.

The entry cost to the aquarium is $8 for children and $12 for adults. Assuming only 27,600 children (and no adults) attended in November the sales reviews would have exceeded $220 grand.

Planet Aqua is a private company, not subject to the Public Records Act. Thus, meaningful data concerning the fiscal status of the aquarium can not be discovered by request.

How much longer the aquarium creditors will allow this facility to be open, collecting entrance fees but not paying its construction bills is unknown. Those that have filed liens do have a good vehicle to find out what is really happening by forcing Planet Aqua into an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In the alternative any of the aquarium’s creditors could file litigation to collect unpaid moneys and ask the court to impound revenue to pay their claim.

How long the aquarium can continue to operate by not paying creditors and not answering hard questions to the public is probably only a matter of time. How much monthly revenue has been generated since its opening, how these moneys have been expended, and the total amount of unpaid bills are serious issues that Planet Aqua will not address.

Much like the closing of Sci-Port, the aquarium is fast becoming a major disappointment, and a civic black eye. How much longer the city will endure these embarrassments is an open question.

Feel free to share all or part of this column with others and to post to Facebook. No requirement to list my name.