SettleTalk.com

If one ever drives through downtown Shreveport, especially in the early mornings, late evenings and/or the weekends, it is quite apparent that a large number of people seemingly “live” in vacant storefronts, on public properties and in alleys.

Unfortunately well-intended efforts to feed these individuals and to give them pocket change has not helped this reality, only exacerbated it.

The Long Range Planning Committee of the Caddo Commission will address this issue in its meeting on Monday, 16 October at noon. The meeting will be in the council chambers at government plaza on Travis Street.

A representative from HOPE Connection has been invited by committee chairman Mario Chavez. Reportedly Commission president Stephen Jackson has also invited speakers. 

The meeting is open to the public and hopefully individuals from agencies with resources to assist these downtown “folk” will attend. Anyone can address the committee on the homeless/transient issue as well as public restrooms. 

Public interest in this issue has become heightened after the release of a video from Sheriff Prator of public defecation on the courthouse grounds and a subsequent proposal to install a public restroom by the courthouse.

Please share all or part of this column with others. No requirement to list my name.

Well…now is your chance!

It comes with a one acre corner lot on Crockett Street that spans from Marshall to Edwards Street. And it has a 5,000 square foot brick building ideal for offices. 

The 25,000 square foot canopy over the building can be removed. The structural steel for the canopy can be used to build a eight story parking garage. 

It could be all yours for a minimum bid of $1,020,000.

The long-heralded Shreveport Intermodal Facility on Murphy Street across from the Shreveport City Court building will finally be opened sometime between now and year end. This facility will become the primary Sportran hub as well as the Greyhound Bus depot.

Soooo…what happens with the tent?

Well, it depends on the sealed bids.

The Tent was originally acquired with $7 million grant from the Federal Transit Authority (FTA). The grant had specific requirements for use of the facility.

If the property is no longer needed for public transportation purposes and it remains in the City’s inventory, the City must reimburse the FTA eighty per cent of the land value, including depreciation.

If the City sells the property, it may use eighty percent of the sales price for the purchase of additional busses.

If the property is not sold, the City can avoid paying the feds any money if Sportran continues to use the tent as a bus terminal for at least 50 % of its bus traffic. In the alternative, the tent could be converted into a maintenance facility.

The bids are due on October 31, 2017.

Needless to say downtown advocates are very concerned over the future use of this large parcel which is just a short city block from the courhouse. And so is Sportran, which does not want to have any further use of the downtown facility. 

Liz Swaine, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority is hopeful that a private investor will purchase the tent. “The SporTran Terminal on Crockett Street downtown has become iconic…everyone now recognizes that tented structure. Though it was built very mission-specific, to be a bus terminal, there are other things it could become. The infrastructure is there for a Food Truck Terminal protected from the weather, with bathrooms and a place for a permanent restaurant/bar. It could also be an arts market, a year-round food co-op. My favorite idea is to repurpose some SporTran buses into small office and retail spaces and have them parked there for rent to businesses. This could truly become something remarkable.”

“We hope to be able to work with the city on repositioning the terminal into something wonderful, unique and useful. There are a number of ideas floating around that would make that facility something that would draw people into downtown.”

“We have one of the architecturally coolest bus terminals in the country. Our job now is to find a use that is as fun and unique as the facility itself.”

Please share all or part of this column with others. No requirement to list my name. 

The Shreveport Caddo Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) meets on the first Wednesday of each month at 3 pm in the Council Chambers at Government Plaza. The MPC has a “private” work session beginning at 1 pm before each meeting. 

The work session is not publicized although it is subject to the Louisiana Open Meetings law. Thus it is open to the public. This fact is not generally known.

A catered meal is provided for the MPC Board members and staff at the work session. The meal is paid out of the MPC budget.

But twice a year the MPC work session is held in the private “Green Room” at Chianti’s Restaurant on Line Ave. 

Generally a “green room” is referred to as the waiting room/lounge for performers before and after a performance. In this instance the reference is to “bucks” as in taxpayer dollars for high end Italian cuisine. 

Six of the nine board members, three MPC staffers and Sweeney, dined there last Thursday. In addition, MPC attorney Rick Johns was paid to sit and eat—but not talk.

The tab was almost $300. The tab would probably have been $400 if MPC board members Ronnie Remedies, Dale Colvin and Alan Young had been able to attend .

The work session featured 2 power point presentations. One was on the $10,000 MPC financial feasibility study. The other explained the Red River overlay district. The 2108 proposed MPC budget was also reviewed.

The feasibility study recommended that the Parish funding of the MPC be increased from 13 percent of the budget to 25 percent. And that the City’s funding be decreased from 87 to 75 percent. It also suggested that various MPC fees be increased.

The feasibility study was repeated at the MPC meeting for the full MPC board and the general public.

MPC Executive Director Mark Sweeney casually advised those in attendance that the City of Shreveport was studying the feasibility of establishing an internal planning office. He also mentioned, off hand, that the Parish had authorized a similar study.

His casual remarks indicated little concern that his job, much less the MPC office itself, was in jeopardy of not being funded for 2018.

Shreveport City attorney William Bradford will soon release his legal feasibility assessment for an internal city planning office. 

Attorneys versed in municipal law all agree that the City and the Parish are not bound to fund the MPC. And that both can set up internal offices. 

The Parish could choose to contract with a city internal planning office or just set up a separate office.

Sweeney also crooned over his accomplishments in spending $650 thousand dollars of City and Parish tax dollars in getting the Unified Development Code promulgated, vetted , and implemented for the City. The Parish is expected to adopt a slightly different version of the UDC by year end.

The last 20 minutes or so of the lunch meeting featured dessert for MPC Chairman Theron Jackson and idle chit chat. 

Due to the distance to Government Plaza, the MPC meeting started late. But why should the Shreveport peasant citizens complain? In the MPC dream world, it was just another wonderful day in paradise.

Please share all or part of this column with others. No requirement to list my name. 

The Caddo Commission spends its portion of Riverfront Gaming Funds by doling it out to non government organizations (NGOs). 

This year the expected revenues are $950 grand.

The Commission Appropriations Committee is charge of reviewing all the NGO funding requests. It then makes a recommendation to the full Commission on which organizations are funded, and in what amounts. 

The 12 member Commission can amend the Committee’s recommendation on a simple majority vote.

The Appropriations Committee members were Jerald Bowman (chair), Mike Middleton, Mario Chavez, Lynn Cawthorne and Matthew Linn. Commission president Steven Jackson is an ex officio member. (After the meeting, Jackson removed Middleton from the Committee.) 

The Committee met on October 2 to review requests of approximately $2.4 million dollars from 66 Caddo organizations. 

Once the meeting started Committee members received for the first time a 3 page handout listing the NGOs, the 2017 Commission funding and the requested 2108 funding. 

The handout also included a brief description of the funding purpose. Examples include “support and expand Image Changer’s comprehensive tutoring program”, “assist with the MLK awards banquet and the Civil Rights Celebration”, and “support for children of faith summer camp.”

Other members of the Commission attended the meeting. Although they could not vote, they were free to chime in, either opposing or pushing funding. 

Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) was the most vocal. He convinced the committee to fund several requests that were not timely submitted. 

Most significantly LBJ successfully lobbied for funding of his fraternity. The Committee voted for $30 grand to assist with the long established Good Times Roll festival.

The Committee actually had 2 meetings. The first was for 2 hours before the Commission work session. 

The second, which was late in the day, after the work session. It was obvious at both meetings that the committee was more motivated by the goal of completion, than careful screening and deliberation. 

When it was all said and done the Committee’s approved funding exceeded the anticipated revenues by over $100,000. Another committee meeting will be had to pare down the recommendations before presenting to the entire Commission.

The Committee funding for several NGOs exceeded staff recommendations. These organizations were Bernstein Development Incorporated, the Norwela Council of the Boy Scouts, Community Renewal International, Robinson’s Rescue Low Cost Spay/Neuter, and Urban Support Agency. 

NGOs recommended for first time funding included Querbes Park Foundation, Rock Solid Athletic Club, Queensborough Progressive Citizens, Project Seek, Red River Cleanup, and Steeple Success.

How the sixty plus organizations will fare after the next committee meeting to pare down the recommendations to the expected funding is an open question. And then the final committee report will be subject to scrutiny by the 12 member Commission who must make the final approval. 

Needless to say, more political game playing can be expected as these elected officials divvy up these funds to bolster their political standing. The entire process, to date, is “politics” in the true sense of the word. And it has not been pretty, to say the least. 

Please share all or part of this column with others. No requirement to list my name. 

It’s a good question, and one that City Council president James Flurry has asked.

For the record, Bossier City, Baton Rouge or New Orleans do not have this committee, or anything similar.

So why in Shreveport?

The Shreveport ordinance establishing the Architectural/Engineering (A/E) Committee provides that the Committee is to “assure the city selects qualified firms to provide it with architectural, engineering, interior design, construction management, land surveying.”

The Committee also is to “provide that firms whose primary business address is in the Shreveport-Bossier metropolitan area are selected to provide these services when they are properly qualified and are experienced in the type of work needed by the city.”

The A/E Committee reviews responses to Requests for Proposal (RFP) that have a contract amount of $10,000 or higher. With an RFP, selection of the lowest dollar amount is not required. 

There are 9 members of the A/E selection committee. The directors of public works, water and sewerage, airport director, city engineer and executive director of the metropolitan planning commission are automatic members. The chairman of the city council and the clerk of the city council are also automatic members.

The Mayor has 2 appointments to the A/E Committee. These are David Aubrey, who spends most of his time in Baton Rouge with his job, and Linda Biernacki, who is a major campaign donor to Ollie Tyler. Aubrey is in management with AT&T and Biernacki is the owner of Firetech Systems.

The ordinance prohibits citizen appointees and their employing firms from competing for city A/E contracts while on the Committee and for 6 months after their term of service has ended.  The ordinance does not preclude the citizen appointees/their companies from being sub contractors on A/E contracts.

Rumors have circulated about conflicts of interest both with Aubrey and Biernacki. 

The A/E Committee is charged with reviewing all submittals from A/E firms to determine the firms which it considers most qualified for and suited to perform the work. Aubrey’s qualification for this determination as one of the voting committee members is questionable at best.  Biernacki’s company provides a substantial percentage of the fire prevention systems in local construction projects.  She has ties to many if not most of the companies that bid for A/E contracts. 

The Committee is charged with selecting 3 “qualified” firms. The Mayor then has the sole authority to select one of the 3 recommended contractors.

At the last A/E Committee meeting it was apparent that concerns other than qualifications were paramount in the voting of Aubrey, Biernacki and some of the other members. One of these deal with selection of a minority contractor whose office was in Aubrey’s Baton Rouge office building. The other dealt with how much time had passed since a contractor had gotten the vote of the Committee.

One wonders why the MPC executive director is on the A/E Committee.  The MPC is a separate government entity and it does not deal with qualifications of contractors.  And what qualification does the airport director bring to the table?  

Bottomline, the A/E committee in its present form, appears to be a dinosaur.   Flurry’s interest in a review of the committee and its functions are very timely.

Please share all or part of this column with others.  No requirement to list my name.

Caddo Commissioner Mario Chavez is expected to introduce a resolution at the next Commission meeting to purchase and install a public restroom on the courthouse grounds.

Under consideration is a Portland Loo, a metal structure with a locking door and one toilet which is handicap accessible.

The total cost , including installation, could exceed $126,000.

Leaving the “politics” of the matter, there are many practical and legal issues that should be a part of the Commission deliberations.

Chavez believes that the loo will eliminate the problem of the “homeless” using the courthouse grounds as a public restroom.

The loo will be installed on the Milam Street side of courthouse.

Most of the “homeless” congregate on the Texas Street side of the building.

Whether the “convenience” of the nearly trees and bushes on the Texas side of the courthouse will be offset by the privacy afforded by walking around to the Milam Street side is a open question.

Another question is whether or not this public amenity wouldl serve as a “draw” for more “homeless” or vagrants to congregate in the 500 block of Texas. This is “the build it and they will come” theory.

Commissioner Matthew Linn’s belief that the timed opening of the loo door will prevent people from setting up camp in a loo is faulty. The door openings would only provide fresh air and sunshine to an inhabitant accustomed to living outside.

Another concern that the Commission should address is a possible failure of the loo door lock. What happens when an intruder enters the loo when it is occupied? Or when a loo user can not get out of the loo because the door will not open?

Maintenance of the loo must be addressed. The city of Portland spends over $18,000 per year to have loo maintained, including weekly power washes and minor repairs.

One wag suggested that the 12 Commissioners volunteer to be “loo janitor” for one month of the year.

Regulating activities within the loo is another matter. No doubt there will efforts by some to use the loo for purposes other than what is intended; these are limited only by one’s imagination.

The loo will be installed by the Commission on land owned by the City. Which public entity will be liable for any injuries incurred by those using or attempting to use the loo is another factor for review.

Many believe that installation of the proposed public restroom will create more problems that it solves.

It’s no secret that Caddo Commissioner Matthew Linn has no love lost for Caddo Administrator Dr. Woody Wilson.

Linn was Commission president for the 2106 calendar year. One of first acts in that position was to attempt to remove Wilson from the NLCOG Committee. His efforts ultimately failed.

He had previously accused Wilson of not actually being a resident of Caddo Parish as required by Commission action.

This year Linn has pushed to have more authority for the Commission, and less for Wilson. Linn is the chairperson of the Commission Clerk & Administrator’s Evaluation Committee.

Other members are Lynn Cawthorne and Doug Dominick. Steven Jackson, Commission president, is Ex-officio member.

Linn scheduled a committee meeting for Wednesday September 27. The business listed on the published agenda was to meet with KPMG guest to “discuss the benefits that objective assessments can provide to local governments and citizens.”

Those at the meeting included Linn, Cawthorne, Middleton, Wilson , Commission finance director Erica Bryant, Commission attorney Donna Frazier, Commission Clerk Todd Hopkiins, and assistant Caddo administrator Randy Lucky.

The “discussion” was a sales pitch by 2 KPMG professionals to conduct department reviews to determine operational efficiency. This study would cost $50 to $100 thousand dollars per department. The short meeting (30 minutes) seemingly did not justify the flight from Atlanta Georgia for the meeting.

Later it was discovered that the KPMG pair had met with Linn and several Commissioner that morning at the office of Commissioner Mario Chavez. Those known to have attended included Linn, Chavez, Middleton and John Atkins. Commission president Steven Jackson was invited but could not attend due to a work conflict. Commission vice president Doug Dominick was invited, but he declined.

Whether or not all that attending the morning meeting were together as a group or met in smaller groups is unknown. Nor is the topic of discussion, although it is presumed work evaluations of Wilson and Hopkins were on the front burner.

The names of other Commissioners who may have been invited , whether they attended or not, is unknown. Only one Dominick replied to an email inquiring about attendance; he refused to attend.

Evidently cell phone texts were utilized to set up the clandestine meeting.

The Louisiana Open Meetings law mandates that meetings of a quorum of a public body shall be open to the public exception for executive sessions approved by two-thirds of the members present.

There are 12 Commissioners. Thus a gathering of 7 or more together must be noticed and held open to the public unless an executive session is approved.

The Open Meetings law also applies to committee meetings. If a majority of a committee meets together, the meeting must be open to the public.

How the private meeting by the Commissioners with KMPG was handled is not really an issue. The overriding concern is transparency to the public. If Linn wanted to discuss Wilson and/or Hopkins at a meeting of Commissioners, a vote could have resulted in an Executive Session.

For an elected body that has struggled with its public image, these actions constitute another black eye. And shame on Linn, who orchestrated this scheme, as well as Chavez, Middleton, and Atkins who participated in a process that obviously was intended to violate the Public Meetings law.

And this goes for Jackson as well, who defended the meeting as Ok. Hopefully other Commissioners who were a part of this back room closed door sham will be identified. Additionally, Commissioners should be questioned publicly at the next Commission meeting, either on Monday (October 2, 2017) or Thursday (October 5, 2017).

So much for the good government principles that Linn continually espouses when making requests to Commission staff, suggesting more power be vested in the Commission versus the Parish Administrator and promotion of this self serving agenda. As they say, when the lights are turned on, the cockroaches run.

Talk about a bummer, a major let down and sad story…just ask anyone who attended the recent fund-raising event at the much heralded Planet Aqua aquarium on the River Front.

It’s easy to dismiss the well-founded complaints on the basis that the construction of the aquarium is not finished (and it has a long way to go). Or that it was too early to expect to see critters there. And it was the first event at the restaurant.

Tell that to the 250 or so that paid $65 a head to attend. The only saving grace was that the event was a fundraiser for the Leadership Shreveport group of the Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce. Small solace.

S.A.L.T. is the aquarium restaurant; the acronym is for Sea, Air, Land and Time. Many that attended the event left grumbling saying that S.A.L.T. stood for “Slow, Abysmal, Late, and Tiny.”

Many guests left before all the food was served. Only 2 of the entries had been served by 8:15 pm for a dinner that was advertised to start at 7 p.m. The portions were small, as in teeny weeny—a 2 small leafs of lettuces being a “salad”.

 

How 2 servers could be expected to promptly distribute the various courses to the crowd of over 200 defies logic. It was typical of the entire event.

Much like the serving crew, the 2 bars were terribly short-handed. Whether one wanted water or a alcoholic libation, wait, wait and wait was the operative word.

Since the aquarium received the bar proceeds seemingly efforts would have been made to expedite delivery of drinks. If for no other reason, prompt service may have placated the large frustrated and disappointed crowd, most of whom were seated outside in the heat.

But so much for planning and sending a good PR impression to others who may have considered having a party at the aquarium. Since the number of guests was known prior to the event, it would not have been rocket science to plan accordingly.

Tours of the unfinished but soon to be finished aquarium were also part of the “attraction” of the event. The 10 minute experience was a major disappointment. In fact it was almost comical.

Many high school science projects have more sophistication. To say that the aquarium displays were amateurish is a gross understatement.

When the construction work will be completed was a question not answered. Neither was when the aquarium will actually open.

A tour guide advised that the fish and other critters were coming from Australia and that shipment had been delayed. A newscast this week said some critters will be coming from Florida. Additionally there will be a three week transition period for the aquarium inhabitants to get acclimated to their new restrictive environment.

And to top it off, various aquarium venues were posted with “sponsorships available” postings. When asked, the tour guide admitted that sponsorship funding would not be tax deductible because Planet Aqua is a for profit entity.

So much for wishful thinking.

The Planet Aqua group is clearly over their heads in setting up their first aquarium, much less a restaurant and bar. How and when this group can get their “first child” launched is a major issue.

Add to this the management of Sci-Port by Planet Aqua and one can soon expect a major disaster on the riverfront. Who will turn out the light is yet to be decided.

 

In the last seven days, on how many days did you exercise for 30 minutes or more?”

This was the question asked to over 350,000 telephone interviews with adults in the United States across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The telephone polling was conducted from January 2. 2015 to December 30, 2016 as part of the research for the Gallup-Sharecare Well-being Index that was recently released.

This index is touted to be the world’s largest data set on well-being, with over 2.5 million surveys fielded to date. Gallup conducts 500 telephone interviews daily, resulting in a sample that it projects to an estimated 95 percent of all U.S. adults. The interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish.

Those who responded to the interview and who reported exercising 30 minutes or more days in the previous week were categorized as exercising “regularly.” Some communities reflect the same score when rounded to a single decimal. The report indexed 189 communities. 

Shreveport-Bossier ranked number 142 with 50.6 of those interviewed saying they exercised “regularly”.  Lafayette was the highest ranked city in the state, coming in number 61 with a regular exercise rate of 55.8. New Orleans ranked 109 with a regular exercise rate of 52.5 and Baton Rouge was number 127 with a 51.2 regular exercise rate.

In 2016, the communities with the highest rates of regular exercise were from Colorado (five communities in the top 25) and California (six communities in the top 25). Boulder, Colorado was the number one exercise community with almost 70% of their residents indicating they exercise regularly. The report stated that Boulder had a track record of high well-being, high fresh produce consumption and extremely low rates of obesity.

Several of the lowest exercise communities were in Ohio, they had 6 communities in the bottom 25. Hickory-Lenoir-Morgantown, North Carolina was the nation’s lowest community for regular exercise with only 41.8% of their residents exercising regularly. 

The rates of regular exercise varied by gender, age, ethnicity and income. Males outpaced females for regular exercise by 4.5 percentage points. Not surprisingly, exercise rates fell as people aged. 18 to 29 year olds had a 10 point higher regular exercise rate than those age 65 and above. 

Of the four major ethnicities in the U.S., Hispanics (55.5%) boast the highest rates of regular exercise followed by Asians (54.6%). Finally, the report concluded that there was a direct correlation between regular exercise rates and income; rates of exercise rise as income rises. 

It’s a well known fact that the stately Caddo courthouse grounds on the 500 block of Texas in the heart of downtown Shreveport has become, for some, an outdoor bathroom location. Sheriff Prator listed this problem as one of his justifications for the construction of a wrought iron fence around the courthouse square.

Caddo Commissioner Mario Chavez identified what he believes is a solution to this problem—install a public bathroom on the courthouse grounds. Chavez says that “if the main issue at our Courthouse is people using the lawn as a public bathroom, common sense says lets install a bathroom.” Chavez intends to introduce a resolution for the bathroom installation at the next Commission work session on October 9.

Chavez is looking at the installation of The Portland Loo, which is advertised to be “a unique solution to a universal problem”. The “Loo” literature says the toilet uses 1.28 gallons per flush. The electricity requirement for the toilet as relatively small with a max load of 60 watts at 110 volt circuit. 

As far as cleaning and maintenance, the City of Portland contracts with a non-profit organization to provide janitorial/cleaning services a minimum of twice daily which includes the provision of soap an paper supplies, a weekly power wash, and minor maintenance and repair. The annual cost per unit for Portland is $18,666 or $1555 a month. Presumably, the Commission will decide how to handle these responsibilities when deciding on the purchase of a “Loo”.  

The base price a non-solar loo is $90,000. Estimated cost for utility work for water, sewer and electrical is listed as $22,000-$25,000. Foundation work for the slab and finish is estimated to cost between $7200 and $9000. Shipping costs will be $3500 to $5000. And the installation cost for a crane, labor and hookup are estimated to be $3600 to $5000; crane access is required. Thus the total estimated cost is listed at $126,300 to $134,000. How much of these listed labors could be performed by Commission employees, at what amount of savings, is not yet known.

As they say in real estate circles, its location, location, location. And that will be the next issue the Commission must decide if a Loo is to be installed. A commission staffer advises that “it would be an extremely tight fit to place it (the Loo) in the area that currently has bushes in it on Marshall Street. It would have to go closer to the sally port door on the south end. There are no other viable options for placement. The only other locations that are on Parish property would involve removing the historic water trough and an Oak tree that is near the McNeil Street entrance.”

For those not that familiar with downtown Shreveport, the courthouse and grounds occupy the entire 500 block of Texas Street, with Texas Street on the north side and Milam on the south. Marshall Street runs north to south and it is on the east side of the courthouse. McNeil Street is on the west side. The McNeil Street entrance is used by courthouse personnel including judges; it is not open to the public. The Marshall Street side of the courthouse has 2 sally doors; prisoners are transported in and out of the building through these doors. The public can also enter on this side. Thus the suggested location of the Loo would be on the Milam Street side of the courthouse near McNeil Street. 

It will be interesting, to say the least, to see the public reaction to this proposal. If nothing else it will provide a welcome (?) distraction from the continuing hubbub over removal of the Confederate Monument, and the increasing noise over the suggested courthouse fence. Some skeptics have already mused that the public restroom would encourage more homeless people to “hang out” at the courthouse. Others have surmised that a Loo would be a good place for those that want to “light one up”, either to celebrate what their courthouse visit, or to fortify themselves for the same. One can expect much public discussion on this issue which no doubt will also become a hot topic on social media.