City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. It's smaller, but anyway, go ahead and get it. Yeah, well, it can if it needs to. All right, I'll leave you alone. Good? Yes, sir. Call me if you need something.

This regular meeting to order. Mr. Beeson is going to lead us in the pledge. I'm going to lead us in the prayer. Oh, Heavenly Father, we pray and ask that you watch over us this day, Father God, that you give us guidance and wisdom, Lord, that you touch upon the crowd, touch upon our families that are represented here, touch upon this city, that even if we disagree, we may come into agreement for the common good of our city to help it grow, prosper, and be the example throughout the state of Louisiana. Lord, I pray and ask that you watch over my colleagues, that you give us sound judgment, sound wisdom, and understanding. Give us a listening ear that we may make the right decision. In Jesus Christ's name we pray, amen. Amen.

Please face the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Miss Renee.

Mr. Bilbo.

Here.

Mr. Young. Here. Mr. Harvey. Here. Mr. Marks.

Here.

Mr. Visano. Here. Mr. Pondell. Here. And Mr. Weatherford.

Here.

We have a quorum.

I wanna take a little time at the beginning. As you can see, you can look around and see we pretty crowded in here today. So I'ma ask that we follow decorum of the city council. If you come up here to speak, direct all your questions and comments to the council. We're not gonna talk back and forth between clients and from the audience. And I would ask that you respect that as we go forward. The first thing we're gonna do, we're gonna, oh, let me do the deferments. We're deferring number 13, Number 19 and number 22 till June 17th, 2026. 13, 19, and 22 till June 17th, 2026. And we're deleting number 18. Deleting number 18. Please vote on the minutes, previous minutes.

7-4.

Okay, at this time, if there's no objections, I'd like to move number eight up to the top of the list and we discuss that first. Any objections? Public hearing and consideration of the Lake, public hearings. Public hearing and consideration of the Lake Charles Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to deny a request for a variance in order to construct a new addition United Way. One, construction of single story building versus required two story. to allow channel letters and a six inch logo thereby exceeding the allowable three inch in height or three foot in height within a t5 urban center transect zoning district at 815 ryan street mr marks i think it was a six foot logo just this is yeah six foot i said what six inch yeah six foot logo all right big difference they're nervous with this big crowd

Mr. President, I'm going to be brief. I know there's a lot of people that want to speak this evening. This item is before you on an appeal. The Planning Commission considered this application for these two variances for the United Way building to be constructed on Ryan Street. two one story versus two story and the again the channel letters that you just mentioned the testimony was heard by the Commission consider the testimony for and against and voted against the project the variances by vote of four zero just want to be clear the vote was four to zero against that's correct so this application is before you on an appeal just as it was presented to the Commission

And if I understand correctly, Mr. Begaris, the application has to come back as it went to planning and zoning, correct?

You're voting on it just as it was presented to planning and zoning. OK. It hasn't changed or been modified.

OK. Virginia? Webb?

I think you did. That's an opponent I think you may want to have. I don't know which order you want to go. Oh, oh, we need to have. My bad. United Way representative.

Yes. Mr. Lofton?

Member of the council, state your name and address for the record.

Billy Lofton, representing United Way.

We would ask that our director be allowed to speak first, and then one of the board members, and then I'll come do my presentation.

Good afternoon. Thank you so very much for allowing us to be with you today.

Did you name and address for the record?

Denise Durrell, 815 Ryan Street, Lake Charles. And I am the president and CEO of United Way of Southwest Louisiana. And we greatly appreciate the opportunity to bring our application on appeal with you here today. As many of you may know, United Way has actually been in the downtown city of Lake Charles for 86 consecutive years. And I would think that the only two organizations or businesses that have outlived us in downtown is actually the city of lake charles and probably calcasieu parish we are 100 percent committed to our region and we do believe that it's imperative that we be located in the downtown district as many of our other United Ways are nationwide because it makes us centrally located. It allows people to have the opportunity to have transportation, and it really allows us to have central services, so to speak, so that we can serve our community. When you look at our history in downtown Lake Charles, we have actually been located in the old Association of Commerce building. I don't know if anybody remembers that place. And then we spent some time at the old Majestic Hotel before we moved to an office on Pujo Street. And then in 1981, we were extremely fortunate that the fair department store location at 715 was donated to us. And then as we began to grow and service more and more people, we saw the need to move. And so in 2016, we actually purchased our current property at 815 Ryan. Currently, we are in a two story building that is 100% compliant with the smart code. And I'm happy to say that we have been there 10 years and through the wise investment of not only our board, but our donors, we are now mortgage free, we have paid that building off in full in half the time that we were allotted to do so so with that being said just proves the commitment that we have to not only this community but to downtown as well so we are here to stay we don't have any plans to relocate anywhere we know that this is the best place that we can and will serve our community so thank you very much and I would like to invite one of our board members who's with us today to share her experience with you not about United Way

Marcy Bradley, 5721 Hemlock Street, Lake Charles, LA, 7605. Like she mentioned, I'm on the board of directors. I actually recently joined the executive committee this past year. I work for Westlake Chemical. I'm a chemical engineer. I graduated from McNeese. I've actually lived in the area my entire life. my united way journey didn't start when i joined westlake it actually started in high school i received the southwest hall of fame sports hall of fame award and it was sponsored by united way and that's kind of where my journey with united way started my older sister worked for citgo and she was involved with united way so my uh intriguement kind of continued throughout when i started work at westlake i knew immediately that i wanted to donate my money to unite away but donating money and donating time are two different things and so I joined the committee and then I worked my way up and I actually was the campaign chair two years back to back and then I joined the board of directors and then like I mentioned I'm on the executive committee as well I live in south of town. I actually grew up in Sulphur. I graduated from Lacassine. So downtown was not like a central area that I spent a lot of time in until United Way. I come for a meeting at least once a month. I was actually here yesterday for an event that we were doing literacy kids where we put those together because we try and do many, many events. I attend several meetings being on different committees and then just doing different events along with they do. There are three big events are smoke and barrel battle for a paddle and then the Dolly Run, which are all hosted downtown. And what that does is that gets the community here. So it might not increase nightlife But what it does is you have meetings where you have people who come and they eat lunch here You have events where they come and they do shopping There's many times that I'll come to a meeting early and go shopping. So I just Having all of that it may not increase the nightlife But you're getting all kind of different people here that may not always spend their time downtown and so United Way does so much good for this community, and I've been able to see that from the time I was 17 years old to now be in 31. And I just want to be able to help continue to watch them grow and help our community because I love Southwest Louisiana. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Billy Lofton, 113 Dr. Michael DeBakey Drive, and I represent United Way. First of all, I have time, I think, that's been allotted to me from five different people. And then with my three minutes, I would ask that I have a presentation and then reserve some time for rebuttal in the event that some of the opposition brings up an issue.

We do have a 12-minute limit, Mr. Law. 12-minute limit, but you'll be able to do the rebuttal.

OK, great. So I'd like to reserve some time. Don't let me go beyond six or seven minutes. We'll keep you straight. I'll put a package in front of all of you that I'll refer to. All of the items in there are numbered. So members of the council. In connection with this application, I represent United Way. And as Mr. Berger stated, we're simply asking for a single story versus a two story and to increase the size of the logo and the lettering to six feet versus the three foot requirement currently in the smart code. Our application is set forth in the package that I gave you and labeled as UW1. Let's start off by looking at what we're asking for here. If y'all would look at the screen, I don't know if you have it in front of you, but we have the overhead view with the layout of the proposed development. If you switch to slide two, That's some more detailed drawing of the various rooms in the footprint inside the new building, with the new building being in yellow on the left. You'll switch to the third slide. You'll see what the front rendering of the new building looks like, with the left side of that building being the proposed new development, which is, once again, in addition to the existing building, which is fully compliant. And that is on the right side of that image there. We'd ask that you go to the next slide. Might be the separate file called Street View. We thought that it was important to provide this view to the council because what it does is it shows the front elevation of the buildings, as you can see there on the far end, which you just saw from a straight on perspective, in line with the streetscape, including the B1 Bank building. The reason that we think that's important is because of, and by the way, those images are all as UW2 in that package that I gave you. The reason that that's important is because all that we're really asking the council to do is to just give us the same variances that were given to Bank One. It was just that simple. They had the exact same request to be a one story with a nice facade on the front street to give the effect and the look of the smart code and to change the size of the lettering. That was done and approved by the DDA in 2022, and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission also in 2022. They later came back to the council just 24 months ago and got another variation for the signage that allowed for multiple signs that were not consistent with the smart code and also to do in-sign lighting versus up lighting on those signs. And the council approved that in 2024. That is listed as U3 in your package, just for reference, if you want to see the various approvals that have been made. We're not asking you to deviate. We're just asking you to be consistent. The United Way is a good partner with the community. We're just asking for the same exception or variances that were granted to Bank One. We support the smart code. We're not in here to say that the smart code is a bad thing. We just do not believe that rigid application of the smart code is in the best interest of our community or our downtown. We think that rigid application is deterring development downtown. I've heard various councilmen and other people talk about how it's important to support your Planning and Zoning Commission. I see some of the members here today. I respect the Planning and Zoning Commission. They do an excellent job. However, as the elected officials that supervise and hear the appeals of the Planning and Zoning, I think that it's important that y'all keep the Planning and Zoning consistent. They've approved the B1 variances. And all we're asking is for the same thing. It can't be different. That deters development. If a developer comes in thinking, I'm going to be able to do this, they've approved that. And then they have to go see an architect. If this is not approved by the council, we'll be on our third round with the architects. Developers don't want to come in and pay soft costs associated with developments of doing three and four renderings to finally figure out what's right. They want certainty and they want to know what is going to be expected of me in this community. Are they going to go do it somewhere else? So let's not deter that. I'm here to tell you all that the smart code is good, but let's be a little more flexible with it. There are many reasons that the smart code cannot be rigidly or strictly complied with. It has to align with market demand and population density. It has to remain smart. The smart code has to be smart. It can't be over-regulation. That's not good for the community. Otherwise, we're going to continue to have the vacancies and lack of foot traffic that we have. You can look at the buildings downtown. We can see them from here. We're talking about Bank One. The former location that it was in, still vacant. Zephyrs, still vacant. I don't need to point it out to you. Y'all are councilmen. You know there's too much vacancy down there. After 20 years, we still have those persistent vacancies. We have low foot traffic. And we rely on events. We rely on events to create traffic downtown. The key authors and planners. all recognize that you can't zone your way into this. They recognize the following things, that actual demand is necessary for the smart code to work. Jeff Speck, a well-recognized author and planner, and I even see some of the opposition with Jeff Speck books right out here. He even acknowledges that there has to be actual demand for the smart code to work. Andres Dewani. the designer who helped us with this smart code back in 2006. He says that phasing and market realism should be emphasized over ideal design. We have to recognize these things, guys. We have to We have to look at what we even have, the plan that we have. And I did not put this in all of y'all's package because two reasons. It has a picture of me in the second page that looks like I'm about 40 pounds heavier than I am right now. And it was 20 years ago, and because it's 28 pages. But I do have one in Renee's package. And while I'm thinking about it, Renee, I'd ask that that be made part of the record, all of the exhibits that I just referred to, as well as this. in this Charette report done by Mr. Duany that we adopted. The code and plan can later be adjusted based on direct practical experience. Even the planners that created this contemplated change. There's a picture of you in here too, Stuart. As well as you, Mayor. So we have to recognize that. That's what we're working under. We're working under a smart code that we adopted. But let's keep it smart. It's not smart if we don't recognize changes. Here we are 20 years later. We have to look at the smart code. We have to recognize that it's good. But rigid application is a deterrent to development, OK? This smart code is just a tool. It's a tool for us. It's not a guarantee that this is going to happen down here. We may have this idea of what we want, but it might not be working. And we have to make adjustments. And even the planners and the experts in this field recognize that. Let's work with the tools that we have, and let's recognize their limitations. And we just ask that y'all be consistent and grant this variance to the United Way, one of the strongest partners that y'all have and one of the longest occupants of downtown. Thank you very much, and I'd reserve any extra time I have for rebuttal.

Thank you, Mr. Lofton. Any questions for Mr. Lofton?

From the council?

Okay. Thank you. I'm going to read into the opposition first. There's a, well, let me do this first. These are all the people who don't wish to speak but want to be made a matter of record that they're in opposition. Donna Richard, Virginia Webb, William Vaughn, Amy Monk, William Monk, Sheeky Chapman, Shelly Young, Jacob Raftery, Savon Sonye, William Vaughn. All of those people are in opposition. We have a letter from Ms. Rayani Vaughn, 27092 Todd Jude Road, Dear Councilman, I am writing to respectfully express my strong opposition to the United Way's zoning variance request scheduled for consideration at today's meeting. Although I do not reside in the downtown district, I am a frequent patron of the area and actively support many of the small businesses that contribute to its character, economic fertility, and appeal to both residents and visitors. These businesses bring unique activities, services, and ideas that help sustain a vibrant downtown environment. In contrast, United Way's proposed development, as described by their representative, appears to offer little added value to the district beyond development for the sake of development. Development without meaningful benefit risks displacing opportunities for small businesses that rely on visibility and foot traffic to generate revenue. During the April 13th zoning meeting, a board member suggested a reasonable compromise. Constructing a two-story building and leasing the ground floor to a small business to help offset increased construction costs, United Way's representative stated that this was not feasible due to funding limitations. However, their submitted site plan indicates an intention and inattention to renovate their existing building as part of the project. If funding is the barrier, why not redirect a portion of the donated funds toward the additional cost of a two-story structure? Another viable option is the two-story building they already own at 314 Broad Street, which they previously sought to demolish. Renovating that property rather than allowing it to remain unused would seem to be a more reasonable investment of donated resources. If the organization was aware from the beginning that the property could not meet building codes or zoning requirements without variances, it raises the question of why the property was purchased in the first place. While United Way's proposed facility may serve a worthwhile purpose, I do not believe downtown is the appropriate location, particularly if no compromise can be reached that also supports the city's economic goals and the needs of local businesses. The smart code was created specifically to encourage development that balances community benefit, economic opportunity, and responsible land use. A nonprofit whose mission emphasizes strengthening community resilience should be willing to engage with residents, listen to concerns, and work towards solutions that benefit all stakeholders. Instead, their representatives argue that variances should be granted simply because similar requests have been approved in the past does not reflect thoughtful consideration of the community's needs or the intent of the zoning ordinances. Regarding the request for a six-foot sign, which is double the permitted height, the proposed design is inconsistent with the aesthetic character of downtown and would detract from the area's visual appeal. City Council decisions have a lasting impact on the quality of life, economic health, and long-term development of our community. I respectfully urge you to prioritize the concerns of your constituents and vote against United Way appeal for these zoning variances. Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration of these concerns. Sincerely, Rhiannon Vaughn. Lauren Harrell. State your name and address for the record, please.

Lauren Harrell, 725 Ford Street. Good afternoon. I'm here as a citizen of the downtown area and as a licensed architect with an advanced degree in historic preservation. Before returning to Lake Charles, I worked for the state of Texas teaching communities about preservation tools and techniques. Since my return, I have served as a consultant to the city and other citizens for multiple historic preservation projects. So I am an expert in this. The United Way and when I'm not opposed to United Way in downtown, I'm fine with that. But the United Way development as proposed would be a missed opportunity on a prominent site in downtown Lake Charles. By applying our codes and ordinances that call for appropriate downtown and pedestrian friendly development, the city can Prevent variances that undermine the purpose of the codes and degrade the downtown area. The proposed one story minimally active office space is not the greeting that I would recommend for our downtown area. The codes and guidelines for our historic downtown require true two story development, not only for visual continuity, but also for developing the walkable nature of the street. This is why making it look like a two-story space does not fulfill the purpose of the code. Walkability is extremely important to the economic development of the city and particularly to downtown. The purpose of a variance is to provide relief when a requirement makes a site unusable. For example, if you have a small triangular site and the setbacks make what's left unusable, that's a great reason for variances. Variances are not intended to allow citizens to circumvent the code when they are inconvenient. The code is easily and fairly applied on this site, and there is no reason for a variance. The site can be suitably developed within the framework of our codes. Again, a simple solution would be to construct an actual two story building as required and use the first floor space along Ryan Street as a leasable space for use that contributes to the to the viability of downtown. A common misstatement about these types of codes is that they limit economic development and nothing could be further from the truth. There are plenty of studies proving that they encourage economic development because citizens are assured that their investment will be protected through consistent expectations and quality of development. Continually giving variances is not a consistent expectation. A consistent expectation is what's in the codes. And if you look at the codes prior to your development, you don't have to go back to your architect three times. Allowing the project to proceed as proposed would be short-sighted and demonstrate a disregard for the plans and guidelines funded through years of grants and tax dollars in the city. We have already missed several opportunities in the downtown area in the recent past. Please do not contribute to the continued degradation of what gives Lake Charles a sense of place and maintains its authenticity.

Thank you, ma'am. Anna Crawford. And I'm going to take the liberty of announcing the next name. So if y'all stuck in the middle somewhere, you can start moving as we go. Melissa Buxton. Go ahead.

I apologize for that journey. No problem. Anna Crawford, 727 and a half Ryan Street.

Yes, ma'am.

I have nothing prepared to say. So this is going to come straight from my heart. If I go over time, if there's anybody who wants to donate a couple of minutes to me, I'll take it. approached this as a resident of 24 years downtown matter of fact I didn't realize I could see my window from here 24 years ago when my sweetheart Johnny said come on I got a place for us to go look at I had no idea where we were going and I knew when we walked in that we weren't leaving and I'm still there he's gone to heaven six years ago and I still grieve him If he were here, he would say, this is funny because really this downtown issue thing, it's our downtown. And this parking lot is our parking lot. He knew every homeless person there was in a three-mile radius. He would go ride his bike, he'd go visit the homeless, and he would leave things for them. We watched our grandkids grow up. riding bicycles and tricycles and whatnot in the parking lot. If you ask my grandkids, who does that parking lot belong to, they would proudly say, well, that's Lala's parking lot. That's her spot. That's where she parks. So with that, I'll say I'm grateful to Sherman Properties for 22 years of allowing us to park there, and for the last two years to United Way for allowing us to park there. Through the years, I have seen almost everything you could see in a parking lot. When people think that you can't see them, you can see them. God's watching. and um unfortunately there wasn't many times when i felt like i had to call the cops per se but it gave you an opportunity gave me the opportunity to pray for probably a lot of you here because when you see people come in and out with families and having gone drinking and whatnot it offers an opportunity to pray for that father that boyfriend the mother with the kids calling hauling the kids There's a whole vibration from that parking lot. I don't know yet what's the outcome of it, because the first phase of proposition included a parking lot, I thought. And I thought, OK, good. They're going to have a parking lot. Maybe it'll be available to the public as well, even if it's for pay. People would park to keep from having to walk We're not used to that around here, if you hadn't noticed. I want us to find a united way of making this happen somehow, some way. I just don't see that it's going to be taking away 37 to 50 parking spots that are needed. Not to say that we won't find a way to make it happen because we're survivors.

Mr. President, time of the lady has expired.

how much many more minutes you need maybe one okay please vote to give her one more minute seven four thank you thank you I think we can find a way to make this happen when I counted on one of the most filled times of the parking lot being full I want to say I counted about 38 39 and that wasn't counting all the ones around the back and along the side but we do need parking And I'm supposing when United Way's building is finished, they're going to allow for that somehow. I don't know. I haven't seen it yet again. Maybe they will. But I'm telling you, we do need the parking. The suggestions that have been made are far away. They don't seem it to some people, but to others it is. And when you come downtown to eat, And our neighbors who have taken over taking care of me, by the way, the businesses around here, they are my family, and they take care of me. Let's just find a way of doing it if we can. I think they have good reason, good nature. I don't want to say anything ugly about them. That's not my place. But I think we can find a way, a united way of making this happen to where it works for everybody. Thank you for your time and your extra minute. Thank you, ma'am.

Ms. Buxton. Next up, Leslie Fair. Fain. Fain.

Melissa Buxton, 729 Ryan Street. Good evening, Mayor, council members. Thank you for allowing all of us to be here. My name is Melissa Buxton, and I'm the owner of Bucks Cajun Corner in historic downtown Lake Charles. I'm here tonight to ask one simple question. What kind of downtown are we trying to build? Are we building a downtown that encourages walkability, vibrant storefronts, thriving small businesses, or are we creating a downtown where the rules only apply to some while others use their influence to avoid them? Downtown is not just a collection of buildings, it's a community. For those of us who own businesses here, downtown has become a family. We celebrate each other's successes, we support one another through hardships, we know each other's spouses, children, brothers, sisters, parents, and even some grandparents. When one business struggles, we all feel it. This sense of community is what has allowed downtown to survive hurricanes, economic uncertainty, and years of rebuilding. Since the parking lot at Ryan and Broad were suddenly closed, our businesses have all experienced a dramatic decline in sales. Customers are confused, foot traffic is down, small businesses that already operate on very thin margins are being harmed. We downtown will adapt as this is so much more than just a single parking lot. We will continue to serve our customers. What is deeply troubling and hard to explain to our customers is that a nonprofit organization whose mission is to improve the lives would knowingly take actions that negatively impact the livelihoods of these local families. What message does that send? And what message does it send when the board of United Way Southwest Louisiana includes respected community leaders and elected officials such as the sheriff, district attorney, tax assessor, and others who are entrusted with serving the public interest? We continue to hear that because B1 Bank received variances, United Way should receive them automatically as well. As a mother, that argument reminds me of things that I taught my children growing up. Don't worry about what your brother does or your sister does. Worry about yourself. That's where the focus should be. Each project must stand on its own merits. And yes, there's an important distinction. B1 has truly tried to become a partner downtown. Their employees shop in our stores, they eat in our restaurants, sponsor our events, and actively support our small businesses. They do contribute to the vitality of downtown. No one here opposes United Way's mission and we do greatly appreciate the important work that they do but this issue is whether a proposed development aligns with the vision established for an historic downtown Lake Charles. The smart code was adopted to ensure that downtown remains walkable, mixed-use, and economically vibrant. It was designed to prevent single-purpose developments that reduce street activity, limit engagement, and weaken the interconnected ecosystem that makes downtown successful. When the exceptions are granted that undermine those principles, it sets a precedence that threatens the future of downtown if we allow developments that do not meet these standards that we have established. Mr. President, time has expired. You need one minute to finish? One minute. Probably 45 seconds. Please vote for one minute.

7-4. Thank you.

If the rules are not applied consistently, the vision for downtown loses integrity. And if influential organizations can bypass those standards, small business owners are left wondering whether the investment of our time, money and our heart truly matters. We're not asking for special treatment. We're not. We are asking for equal treatment. We are asking that the same standards apply to everyone. And we are asking you to protect the vision of a downtown where businesses, nonprofits, residents and visitors all contribute to a thriving and connected community. Please stand with the small businesses and families who have invested their livelihoods in historic downtown like trolls, protect the smart code, protect the integrity of downtown and protect the community we have worked so hard to build. Thank you for your time.

Ms. Fain? She's gone? Oh. And John Patrick, I can't make out the last name, will be next.

way of I think it is go ahead I'm sorry hi thank you I'm sorry Leslie Fane and my address is 1215 Kirkman Street I live downtown one of the main major reasons that I think that the City Council that I that I asked you to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board's recent decision to refuse the variances is that one, it was a unanimous decision by the the Planning and Zoning Board. So this is four to zero. And the people on that board are well respected people in our community. They were chosen for the Planning and Zoning Commission because of experience and the reputation they have. And it just seems to if to if you were to vote down what they voted for, it's it's almost like a huge vote of no confidence for our planning and zoning commission. And I think that would be a real that would be a real shame for Lake Charles and for downtown. so that's that's the first thing the second thing as I stated in the planning and zoning meeting when I spoke I'm sorry I can't read my handwriting so when the city of Lake Charles invited Jeff Speck to come speak he's a celebrated urban planner and author it really opened my eyes to the potential of downtown Lake Charles. I mean, I've always been a huge downtown fan. I mean, I wanted to live here over 20 years ago when my husband and I moved here and we were newly married and he was going to be deployed to Iraq. And I mean, I wanted to live downtown. This is where I wanted to be. And I have not regretted it one moment. My kids have grown up here. My husband works here. And so it really opened my eyes to what the downtown could eventually be, not just how good it is now. So according to Jeff Speck, making the city more walkable can make the city more aesthetically pleasing, safer pedestrians and cyclists, more viable for businesses, and more attractive to tourists. I mean, we all know how it is. Does anybody want to give me some time after? We all know like how when we go to other cities like Fairhope and Savannah and places like that, you know, the things that you love when you walk around and you want that for Lake Charles. And I think that, you know, yes, it's kind of a it's ambitious, but, you know, you've got to start, you know, that's how dreams are, you know, come to fruition is having a big dream and ambition. So So anyway, Jeff Speck said the key to having a walkable downtown is in the city of Lake Charles smart code. So if I had known then what I know now about this, I would have been at every meeting where a business Sorry, I know B one's been great for some of the businesses downtown. But had I known that I would have been at every meeting

The time has expired, Mr. President.

You need another minute?

Yes, if you don't mind. Thank you.

Can we vote for another minute?

Vote. So I would have been at every meeting opposing it had I known. And I believe that that's probably true of a lot of people in Lake Charles. They either don't know about it, about walkability and the smart code, or they're just finding out about it, and they're excited about it. So I want to bring up one more point about the lack of support. I live downtown. I've lived here over 20 years. I talk to people who like the idea of walkability and the smart code. I live here. I talk to these people. I don't know where the lack of support idea is coming from, but it's not from the people I talk to, the business owners, my neighbors that I talk to about it. um you know and i just want to point out it's great how many people i see here tonight but i know very few people in this audience and i've lived here over 20 years so i'd like to know where all this support against walkability and smart code is coming from um and then uh another thing that was expired mr speaker okay uh does anybody else want to give me a minute for one more minute

What's your name? Webb. OK, Mr. Webb, you want to donate your time to her? OK, Mr. Webb, donate your time to her. Thank you. She's at five minutes and counting.

I'll try to be quick. So a couple more things along those lines. The mention of rigidity, OK? Well, one person's rigidity might be another person's wholehearted support. So I think being excited about something that has potential to really help downtown is not rigidity. I think that that, like I said, I think that that could be a passionate love of downtown and wanting to see it prosper. And again, along the same lines with lack of support, some of our most interesting buildings downtown in recent years, Erde's, uh the phoenix building the sanchez law firm and i'm probably leaving out some other buildings some of our most uh beautiful new buildings were built according to the smart code so i mean it works it um it adds to downtown and i don't think it's deterring down i don't think it's deterring anything time is expired thank you yes ma'am okay

Those are all the oppositions. These are the ones in favor that want to be on the record. Penny Seneca, Jennifer Berry, Dustin Abshire, Rebecca Stockman, Van Seneca, Ray Zombrecker, Hunter Graham, Megan Daigle, Lori Morrison, Ashley Surratt, Morgan Clayton, Christina LeBitt, Uranne Surratt, Harley Ashworth, Kevin Lacey, Timothy Newsome, Charles Clayton, Jessica Lacey, Lorena Caesar, Billy E. Lofton, Tammy Christophe, Ashley Norman, Jennifer Demas, Kimberly Heckert, Shamika LaMelle, Patience Frederick, Alicia Johnson, Laurie Morton, Chip Morton, Katherine Thabernock, Casey Patrick, Serena Clooney, Rebecca Ainsworth, Jacob Johnson, Autumn Johnson, Robin Oxley, Nakayla Thomas, Justin Keys, David Stutes, Brittany Akers, Skyla Harcier, Kelsey Talbot, Missy Amidon, Jessica Saxby, Terry Johnson, Jonathan Johnson, Treviga Nehmer, Leandra Hardy, Kiara Moss, Chet Valyon, Bethany Rolax, Paul Lionby-Limbrey, Kevin Romers, Tonya Poussin, Erin Chestnut, Bonnie Bronner, Anna Rasberry, Keith Fall, Jason Martinez, Cheryl Piper, Diane Mueller, Angela Ellender, Eartha Guidry, Tina Collins, Tyra Ross, Paula Koontz, Christian Nelson, Gay Gibson, Carol Mack, Jason Ponder, Bradley Stevens, Manina McGill, Wendy Johnson, Murtaza Khan, Phyllis Lofton, Melanie Holly Jr., Jan M. Haley, that's it. All those are in support. Those that wish to speak, Marcy Bradley. You already spoke, all right. Rosalyn Simeon. You wanna speak or you just want it to be on the record? All right. Denise Durrell, she's already spoke. Okay, Mr. Lofton.

Thank you so much, members of the council.

I would like to offer and introduce into the record of these proceedings all of the people that submitted cards. If y'all are OK with it, I'd also like for everyone that's here in favor of the United Way application to stand. If you're in favor of United Way, please stand. Show your support to the council. Thank you. Members of the council, the opposition here today seems to be conflicting. The people that are arguing about the code talk about walkability. Many of the businesses here, though, are really talking about a parking lot. That is simply a liability issue. We don't know what the long-term plan is for that. However, unlimited use by the public is not in the plan right now. Ultimately, there's going to be a development there, regardless of whether it's code compliant or has some variances to it. So I think that the gist that I would like for the council to get out of this is that the opposition is conflicting. They really want drivability, not walkability, because I think a lot of the opposition is driven by this parking lot. And that's not an issue before y'all tonight. And I would ask that you take that out of the decision, because that's not part of this process or part of this application. I'd also like for y'all to consider the fact that United Way, we've got a ballpark estimate to do the second floor and to do something that is smart code compliant. It's going to cost an additional $2.5 million. And I'm ballparking, so I'm not asking y'all to please don't hold me exactly to that number. But that's $2.5 million that we can put in the community towards our mission. Anyway, we do not oppose the planning and zoning. We're just asking that y'all as the elected officials, just please make them be consistent. And that's all that we ask for. We appreciate everything that y'all do for our community. And thank you for your consideration. And if y'all have any other questions for me, I'm available.

Go ahead.

I have a question. Go ahead. I say that it sounds like the bill is going to be built one way or the other, and I assume that you're going to be, by doing the second story, you're going to maintain the current footprint, which means you're going to add additional square footage. Is there, why can't, Why wouldn't it make sense to build, if you need X square feet, I'm going to say 20,000 square feet, just to pick a number. Why not build a two-story, 20,000 square foot building instead of a one-story that's 20,000 square feet plus whatever the second story will be? comply with the code and build the size building.

And I think that if you're ready for me to answer, some of your assumptions are just incorrect, Mr. Weatherford. We would shorten the depth of the building. We would shorten that and bring some of the square footage to the top. And essentially what would happen is we would end up spending $2.5 million extra dollars. And so that's the answer. It's an additional cost. And it can be done. We're asking for a variance because we just want consistent treatment. We had some of the opposition come up here and just say, we just want to be treated equally. Well, that's all we want. We're not asking for special treatment. We just want to be treated equal. And and so that's that's the answer to you.

So it's going to be it's not going to be probably is not going to be a significant amount of more square footage. Just that it costs more to build. No, it's not.

It's going to be the same square footage just moved up. It's not going to be as deep and it's going to cost you approximately. I don't have a hard number, but it's going to cost a couple million dollars more that could be used towards our mission.

Okay, Mr. Lofton, if we need you, you be ready to come back up?

I'm ready to go. You let me know what I need.

Before, I would like to take this opportunity to bring Mr. Begaris back up before we hear from the councilman. Mr. Begaris, is this an accurate depiction of how it would look?

That's for the applicant to determine. Based on what he's presenting, you can say the building has to take on this look and this feature as a condition of whatever, but that's for the- So is that, based upon what you know, is Bank One a true depiction in this picture? My opinion is yes. It is very, very close. Okay.

Mr. Lofton, if you don't mind coming back.

Yes, sir.

This picture that you're showing us is how, is what you plan to do now without the second story?

That is correct. That is the application. It is, I think, my UW number one attachment to my package that I gave you. Also, that's the streetscape that shows you in connection with the B1 building. But there's also the third page, D3. If y'all don't mind, on the IT guys, if y'all would show me D3, which is the third page on the first exhibit. That's the front elevation of what we're requesting and the side elevation, the north elevation.

So the addition is from the tan portion?

Correct. Almost the center of the building. And you can see the right side is a true compliance smart code two-story. And to the left is the variance that we're asking for that has the higher facade like Bank One. And it appears as if it's a two-story, but it's not a true two-story. That's what the variance is for, and that's what it will look like.

Okay.

And the side view depicts from the north, it still gives a two-story appearance from the north side, if you look at that elevation.

So, well, the thing that makes this not smart code is the second floor.

that it does not have that true two story exactly like the B1. In the logo, right? Oh, in the logo. That's correct.

OK. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Lofton? Mr. Harvey.

Do I see it?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. For starters, I have two questions for clarification. One, it was stated several times that the council actually voted to, I don't want to keep saying the name of the establishment, but to the building adjacent to your current establishment. That is not true, just for the record. That was voted and cleared and planned in the zoning. That actually never came before the city council. So I know it's been stated several times tonight that the city council actually approved The B1 Bank approved the B1 Bank building. That's not true. We only approved the signage. So I just wanted members in the audience to be able to understand that. The second thing is, respectfully, I appreciate everybody coming out tonight because obviously this is a major issue. But another thing that stuck out to me is when the planning and zoning heard the case for the B1 Bank, The DDA created a resolution in support that's obviously included in the packet tonight. I've asked this before. I've met with certain people in the community, whether it be residents, business owners, I've fielded phone calls, emails, text messages, letters in the mail, and I appreciate all of that. But I guess my question is, there was major support of the B1 Bank during that particular time. And I guess I wanna know, does the DDA have a stance tonight, whether they for or against this particular project? Because we've had projects in the past that they took a strong stance for or against. And I don't have anything in the packet tonight. I just want to know where do they stand.

Councilman Harvey, I'm not aware of any position taken by the Downtown Development Authority. I know they did hear the proposal by United Way for information purposes only, but I'm not aware of any type of resolution that came out of that. OK.

Mr. Harvey, it was in the record that they took that stand?

Yes, it was in a packet. I don't know who passed it out, but I have it in a packet.

I did. I think it would be UW number three. And that would be the DDA resolution that was in connection with the approval of the B1 item. And that was what was presented to the planning and zoning when the planning and zoning approved it. And so I think I had it under exhibit i'll tell you all real quickly i think i had it under exhibit uh three so that is the downtown authority dda yes sir and we're asking that for this the same variances that they approved on the up on the b1 building and again i'll just those two points really stuck out to me because i just want to know the difference um obviously you know everybody is jockeying for their side but i know that that's a significant

authority, that people are respected authority in the community. So I just wanted to know, what's the difference between then and now? Anybody want to ask?

Is there any representative from that group here?

Nobody had anything listed.

Our position is that there is no difference, and that what I think there's individuals here from the DDA, but they don't think they have a formal vote on any position. So that's just the United Way's position.

That's the only two things I have for now, Mr. President.

Mr. Young, anything?

Yes, sir. Thank you for the time. I've certainly heard from more individuals on this issue than I have any other issues come before the council in the last ten and a half months that I've been able to serve here. I think there were a lot of great arguments made on both sides. A couple of things that I do disagree with is that United Way does have permission to use their property as a parking lot or not in any way that they choose as a private property owner. I do feel that way. I think it's incumbent upon the city for us to work with the mayor to figure out a parking solution for downtown to be able to service those businesses and really be able to support them. But their parking lot is theirs to use. I do have to disagree with the use of the word consistent because I think across the board this council has strived to be consistent we've had many discussions about planning and zoning and upholding those decisions or letting them go what is the value of that of that organization that thoroughly reviews a process consistency is supporting the zoning code across the board however we can as consistently as we can in the time that we have this council is has consistently supported planning and zoning. I've heard from several constituents in my district that starts, it's not really inclusive of this part, but the south part of downtown that goes from Clarence moving south on Ryan Street all the way to McNeese. And there are several building owners who have built their buildings, invested in the community, and upheld smart code. the Sanchez Law Firm, Empire of the Seed, and the Phoenix Building, the original United Way Building, Woodring Apartments, Crying Eagle, and just a few others, but several that have dropped emails into my inbox to let me know how they feel. As of last night, and I've been in Baton Rouge today, so not really able to keep up with what was coming in the inbox, but as of last night, I had 44 emails. 42 in support of maintaining the code, and two asking for this variant. Let me be clear. The work that United Way does in our community is extremely important. We would not be where we are today, post-hurricane recovery, without United Way. I say that emphatically. Also, to Denise's credit, the organization that she has built here in Lake Charles is bar none. It is not the United Way that it was whenever I moved to town in 2009. It's exceeded expectations and it certainly services our community when they need it most. And so I do want them to continue to be a part of downtown. That being said, A unanimous decision from the Planning and Zoning Board is, I feel, one that we have to uphold. If we break that tradition, then we open ourselves to supporting variances every time that Planning and Zoning decides something that the applicant disagrees with. And at that point, what becomes the purpose of the organization that's filled with developers, architects, folks who've had long-term experience with this? an appointed body, therefore they are nonpolitical. We are a political body and we're, you know, working for reelection. And I feel like this decision should be made by an appointed body, not a political one. So that being said, I do have to vote no tonight on supporting the variants. But I appreciate what United Way does in this community. And if we need to have a conversation moving forward about smart code and its value and should we change that, that's certainly a conversation I think this council should have. But at this point, that is the code that we live by. Thank you.

There's a lot of talk about consistency and the comparison of the Bank One issue to this issue. Variances are meant to be exceptions. And if you really want consistency, you can call it rigid, would be rigid adherence to the code. And there's a mechanism in place that allows people to seek variances. I understand that this is basically more or less a mirror image of what was approved for Bank One, but that was a very different time than today. That was a building that That was a time coming out of a hurricane, recovering from the hurricane, coming out on the tail end of a pandemic, freeze, flood, a lot of insurance issues that people had to deal with. And that's why those variances were granted, or the variance as far as the building goes by the zoning commission. They felt like that it was a dire situation and that... that it was more than an inconvenience for them. So that's why they granted that variance. Situations can be different, especially based on time. Understand that there's concerns with real or perceived that the smart code impedes development. There's been several developments, large developments that have followed the smart code. If you're talking about uniformity, uniformity would be just to support the code blindly. And that's not what we are considering or should consider. One thing that may or may not be unique about this is that it is a new addition to an existing building that was compliant. And that's kind of why I asked the question if they could build an actual two-story building. It sounds like whether grant this variance or not there's going to be a building built there added to that and whether we give the variance or we don't get it right there if we don't get the variance there's going to be a compliant building built there so at least in this instance it's not impeding that development so It's a tough decision, honestly, probably the easiest decision. I wasn't at that zoning meeting, and I'm sure there were a lot of people who were opposed. The easiest decision for the zoning commission may have been just to grant the variance. They've made what was a tough decision, and I agree with Matt that historically we've supported zoning, especially 4.0 rulings, so... Yeah, there has to be a very significant, in my opinion, reason to overturn zoning, and I haven't really heard that tonight. Now, we also have another, I say tradition, but we do want to consider the position of the councilman whose district that is in as well, and I don't know I don't know what we may or may not hear what his position is tonight, but certainly that's also another important consideration to consider, which and so I haven't heard the whole story yet. So.

I speak, Mr. President. I just I just want to say for the record, and anyone knows I'm very transparent. This is not a political decision for me. The decision tonight is going to be up to each individual council. How I vote, I do not want it to reflect I'm not trying to influence any councilman up here in any way. And those of you who had conversations with me, you know that's been my settlement. Like, everyone up here is entitled to their own opinion at the end of the day. We all represent Lake Charles, whether it's north, south, downtown, or whatever. So I just want to make sure it's clear. Every councilman up here is reflecting how they feel individual about this situation. Ronnie Harvey is not trying to influence anybody. My vote is going to reflect how I feel, how I think, and the due diligence that I've done for myself, just for the record. Mr. Fundale. Oh, Mr. Weatherford, you do?

Okay.

It's my turn.

Yes, sir. You know, I disagree with the fact we are elected to make these tough decisions, and it's just it has to be made, and variants are a part of the system because we try to do what's fair. you know and rigid code does not and we at times we we have variance a lot of my really don't like and I just recently had a situation where we granted a variance with twenty seven people was in against the issue yet the council voted to go ahead with it you know that was impacting people at their house where they live at You know, this wasn't no business. It's where they live. But the council has that responsibility and we have to we have to decide. That's all. Yes.

I want to echo what my fellow city councilmen have said. And and it's a tough decision. But Doug, can I ask you one question? not that I haven't studied the smart code but let me ask you this one question so does our code say that everything in this district that this smart code oversees has to be a two-story on the on the street side yes but there are some uses it depends on what

zone it's in. You have T5, T4, T3, Civic. There will be some deviation from the two-story for maybe Civic buildings. So it's fluid. But along the corridor, in this specific classification along this corridor, it's a two-story.

Has to be two-story on the street side. On the street side.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Can I have a quick clarification on that? That's true in transect. I believe this is five. If they are further away from the, we'll call it the main thoroughfare, the density, because I'm oversimplifying it, but The smart code is more of a density-related code, whereas the code for most of the city is a use-based code. Is that fair?

That's fair. I mean, it's simple. The downtown is designed to be very dense.

very walkable a mix of uses you know so i don't know where that that where the various transects in but and i understand that they want to be next to their current building i'm not suggesting that they go find a place somewhere and further away from their building that they could build a one-story because you can build one-story buildings in the

smart goes on it depends on the if it's in the right depends on where transect zone right okay that was the only reason my question and let me say this i i do agree with some of my fellow city councilmen we have as a group not not 100 but we have agreed that we would consider what planning and zoning does because they do a great service to everybody in the city to us and they don't get paid for it just so everybody understands that And without them, we would be here seven days a week looking at these things, because I promise you, my mailman doesn't like planning and zoning, because I get a lot of mail, and there's a lot that planning and zoning does. So I really want to support their decisions. And they make that decision based on what's right, not on politics, not on feelings and friends. And I see a lot of friends out here, and I'm going to make my decision uh on what i think is right and the people i represent i've heard from a lot a lot of people that have an opinion on this uh and i want you all to understand we don't take these decisions lightly we've talked a lot about these things we pay attention to what's going on uh These are not easy decisions, but we're not here to make the easy decisions. But we've gone against planning and zoning when it's a 2-2 vote, because they basically didn't make a decision. But on a 4-0 vote, It's hard to not look at that and think, did they do their diligence? Because why do we have them if we're not going to trust some of their decisions? And I know we have the authority to overrule that, but we got to give them the weight that I think their efforts are worth. So thank you.

Mr. Bilbo?

well it's the part of it that I signed up for that I really don't like I always listen to the planning zone and stuff but today they brought it to the city council because we couldn't come to agreement the city couldn't come to agreement of downtown the DDA everybody couldn't come to agreement for something that's right downtown that benefits because I told him if They had a storm yesterday. We wouldn't even be arguing with United Way. Everybody be United Way, United Way. But since we ain't have a storm in six years, we tend to forget. We tend to forget that when it's bad, everybody running United Way. And now we want to tell them, well, we let Bank One did it because it was a storm. but we'd rather United Way spend $2.5 million just to look like Bank One. I don't get that part of it. And I don't want to tell my age, but things change. I remember down in Orion when you could play. They had a playground at the end of Orion Street across from Mother's. And when my mama would go shop, we could go play in the area and she could watch us. But things changed from that. You know what I'm saying? Things, decisions was made. You moved the playground. So now since they made this smart code and you had these hurricanes, things change. Well, I believe United Way need to try and conserve as much money as possible because we don't know when it's going to come again. just because i can afford to build a four hundred thousand dollar house and a contractor charged me 300 i ain't gonna give them 400 just because i got it i'm gonna try and save my money so all the calls i'm sorry i didn't get to call people back today i didn't my father's in the hospital so i didn't get the time i usually try and return every call i get so i i didn't even mr weatherford i'm sorry i couldn't call you back today But I believe that we need to support the people that have supported this area for 80 plus years. I'm 54, so longer than I've been here, I believe we should support them. And since I've been on a council, I've been a man on numbers. And the numbers show today they got more people here today who signed these green cards that's in support than what came in red. And I personally walked to some of the businesses and I asked them, I'm not naming people, I asked them, if you were me, what would you vote? And nobody has got back with me. I don't live downtown. But I say, if you had to vote, if I'm asking you what would you want me to say in support of your business or the code or whatever it may be, what would you tell me to vote? I'm asking you. And nobody has yet to got back with me to say how would they feel. That's all I want to know. If you was me, because I'm voting, my vote is for what you say. Nobody has yet got back with me to say, well, Tommy, if I was you, I would vote this way. So now I only can vote by how I feel. And I feel that looking at the rendering and what that it was approved by the house and the authority for bank one, I don't see no reason why I should tell them no, because they the one broke the code initially. We don't break the code to say we broke it because it was a timeframe, but now since it's good, we're not going to break it. If you did it, you opened the door for us to have to make this change. If they never made that change or made that adjustment for Bank One, I could honestly say, man, they ain't never made a change. But when you open a door to change, now I'm forced to make a decision that we shouldn't have to. So me, I don't mind. I'm supporting United Way. So that's it.

Could you put the first picture back up? After that, I'd like to make one comment and ask Mr. Laughton a question. Go ahead. It is going to look like Bank One. I think you may have misspoken. It's going to cost them $2 million to make it look like Bank One. It's not going to. That's in their current plan is to have the false facade on the front. So it's going to look like Bank One.

That's correct. We're asking for a variance like was given to Bank One.

Now, the question I have has to do with the reason for the smart code is the density and to bring people. If you build a bigger building or a two-story building, and spend the extra money, is it going to bring more people downtown? Because the density is the purpose for the smart code, and the reason that you want that, or say the code is in place, is to generate that density to generate people walking and going to businesses. So is spending the extra $2 million going to generate more foot traffic downtown?

members of the council, that's exactly what my argument is.

I know that's why I'm out. Yeah.

And the answer is no. What we're proposing does not prevent walkability. Actually, the opposition has come in and said they won't drive ability anymore.

That's not the point. The question is that it's not it's not about the walkability because I agree it doesn't it doesn't impact walkability one way or the other. That is the question is, is that The density is about generating bodies downtown. People downtown. If you build a two-story building, are there going to be more people in that building?

No. There's not going to be any more people.

The intent of the code is to The second story, if you could rent it out or if you could bring additional people there, it would be, whether it's compliant or not, it would be compliant with the reason that the smart code is in place. If that was going to generate more bodies downtown, which...

having a true second story in your and maybe that's a question for the director I think what you're asking me is that are we going to have more people with the second story and the answer is no there may be increases in staff but that's going to be organic and natural and it's going to be regardless of whether you have

Second floor. So that's my question. Is it because that's the reason the biggest reason for the smart game? It's going to look like the smart code. So it's going to have the appearance of a smart code building. But the real intent is to have that higher density that generates more people and whether it's a false facade front or it's a true second floor, at least initially, unless the market changes, it's not going to bring more people.

If I'm understanding your question, I think you're correct. Yes.

With that being said, I listen to all of this throughout the night and I'm looking at this picture and based upon the picture, I just can't see making someone spend $2.4 million to have a second floor when we get in the same look. The height of the building don't have anything to do with walkability. I think this situation came about whereas I respect the planning and zoning wholeheartedly and we need them. The problem came when you chose to make a decision about one building and kicked it over to us for the other building. Now, despite what my colleagues have said about us never overturning, I have always been an advocate of, I want us to respect planning and zoning until such time where there has been an error made. And when an error has been made, we have to be the body that corrects it. So just like Mr. Harvey said, the decision about bank one building was made within the planning and zoning. They chose to make a decision on bank one. And here we have another decision that needs to be rendered and it's been kicked over to the council. So now we're put in a position to be perceived as we either gonna break the smart code or we not. And I think that it puts a lot of responsibility on us. Like Mr. Fundale say, this is what we elected to be. No matter what time it is, time changes. If anything we can use to go against the smart code is because of time. I'm thinking about businesses that we wanna attract to come here. And if a business come here and they got a million dollars to invest downtown and we say, no, you gotta do that second floor, and that business say, well, if I gotta spend another million fold, I'm not coming. And we lose people. You know, when you drive around the United States, you find all variations of things that happen. And we have to change with the times. Right now, or when the smart code was made, it probably was feasible for Lake Charles. Now, with the changing of culture, with the changing of what people get into, we're gonna have to change with the times. I'm one of the people in favor of making smart code more of a reference than the rule. And that way you have opportunities for businesses. Just think about it. If this is two point four million dollars, I can't imagine another small business coming downtown. A small business can't survive, not if we lock them into this. Now, then we make the code where the further you get down the street, it changes. On the other end of Ryan Street, I just learned that some businesses have to put drainage underneath their business because they can't flow on Ryan Street. And other business didn't have to do it. And you're talking about another $207,000 before you can open the business that you've been saving up all your life for. Not to mention, you purchased a piece of property to do whatever you wanted to do with it. Now it's different between the laws of laundering and breaking laws and all these other kind of things. But I'm looking at this thing that we're being asked to make a decision of and I'm looking at a picture and I see no difference. I see no difference. We want to make a person that if the building was 10 foot long, we want them to make it five foot long and put the other five on top. And pay more money for it. Now, I'm not going to say I'm going to have the same position if somebody else decides to say, hey, United Way got a break. Well, that might not apply to you next time. I might change my opinion. But in this particular case, I see where. Again, I respect planning and zoning, but I would much rather have them made the same decision that they made for Bank One. And I've heard people come up here and say Bank One is good. Bank One does this. Bank One does that. And they did all that with one story. So what is going to make this all that bad if we allow them to do it? The parking issue, that's something like Mr. Young said, we got to take care of. We got to give our citizens more parking space. We got to help our businesses get more parking space. Hopefully we can work something out with United Way if they want to, you know, let people park. Maybe let people, if you want to park there, you got to get on the insurance for your business. Put them as a rider. They're protected. You don't have it. But to come here tonight and say I'm in favor of letting these people spend 2.4 million more dollars just to have a second floor that they're not guaranteed to be able to rent out, I just think that's not right in this situation. And I want to be clear to make note of the fact that if anyone come tell me with Craig you voted that way the last, I'm letting you know right now I might change on the next one. It might be different on the next one, depending on the situation, because that's what happened with Bank One. The situation's changed. And we look at the picture, and if this is an accurate depiction of what we're going to be seeing on the street, I mean, both buildings just about taller than Bank One. So I just can't in good faith vote to keep the decision in place. So my vote is going to be for United Way. Any other questions or comments? Okay, we're gonna vote. A yes means, yes, sir. Just one, I was gonna clarify. Go ahead, Mr. Stokes.

A vote for means that you're voting to overturn the decision and grant the variance. A vote no means you're affirming and you're voting no on the variance.

Everybody clear on that?

Please vote.

Five, four, and two against.

Renee, I mean, Ms. Renee, I'd like to poll the council. Could you please?

Okay. Mr. Bilbo voted in favor. Mr. Young voted against. Mr. Harvey voted in favor. You voted in favor. Mr. Visano voted against. Mr. Fondell voted in favor. And Mr. Weatherford voted in favor.

Okay. Appointments. Number one, appoint a chairman to review bids for project number CP3242, Southern Sewell Loop, Gulf Highway Station. That's mine. I think I'm supposed to read that.

I feel like we should be at a movie and take an intermission.

We'll give them a minute to clear out.

The whole council is doing that.

okay appointments appointed chairman of review bids at project number cp3242 southern sewer loop golf highway lift station mr marks Number two, appoint a chairman to review bids for project number CP3507 Lake Charles Event Center green rooms and amend the budget as necessary. Mr. Harvey? Yes, sir. Number three, appoint a chairman to review bids to purchase road-based limestone aggregate per specifications for use by the Public Works Department. Mr. Weatherford?

Yes.

Number four, appoint a chairman to review bids to purchase replacement retractable telescopic riser seating in the Coliseum of the Lake Charles Events Center. Mr. Harvey. Yes, sir. That's a re-bid. Number five, appointment a chairman to review bids for the purchase of bus stop signage for use by Public Works Department Transit Division. Mr. Young, would you take that one? Yes, sir. Number six, appoint a chairman to review bids for purchase of one new service body crane for use by Public Works Department Wastewater Division. Mr. Viznar, would you take that? Number seven, appoint a chairman to review bids for the purchase of water infrastructure maintenance and repair parts for use by the Public Works Department Water Division. Mr. Fundale, would you take that? Public hearings. Number nine, an ordinance ordering demolition and authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 1400 North Shattuck Street. Cleaver Nash and Elvira Nash owners. Mr. Hester.

Good evening, Council, and this is a structure, residential structure, that's been damaged by a hurricane. It is in a flood zone. You can see in the pictures. There's roof damage, exterior wall damage, window damage, all exposing the interior to severe weather damage of the structure.

Mr. President, this time I'd like to offer in the record photographs of the subject property and proof of service through certified mail. This is a rehearing from May 6th. I will offer that at the last hearing, Mr. Harvey commented that there might be someone living in the house and had electricity. But I think Mr. Hester has confirmed there is no one living in the house.

We have no cause, Mr. Harvey.

So we definitely confirm nobody's living there. He was cleaning out the house. And they were supposed to be here, someone here tonight.

Oh, they didn't fill out a card. Do you want to speak? Ma'am, you all want to talk? Come up.

All right.

Right over here. State your name and address for the record when you get up.

My name is Pastor Lawrence L. Nash, and the personnel that was standing there.

Your address, Mr. Nash? Say again?

State your address. 1766 Thompson Road in Moss Bluff, Louisiana, 70611. Okay. Go ahead. The personnel that was staying there was my son and he'd been deceased for about one month now at the age of 43. So what we've done as the owners of the property, my siblings, we're asking that the council will give us at least 30 plus days so we can all come together to make a precise decision on what to do with the property.

I'm fine with granting 60 days. 60 days, that sounds good.

60 days, please vote.

7-4.

Question. Mr. Hart. This will be the only communication he'll receive, so he'll be back in 60 days.

You won't get another letter in the mail. You just have to know to come back in 60 days. What's the date? Let me get it for you.

Okay, well, we'll bow to that. And 60 days, we will come with a precise answer on what to do with the property.

July 15th?

July 15th.

And it's the only notice you'll get that you'll have to be back here on July 15th.

That's a promise.

Thank you, sir.

All right. If you come up with something earlier, I'm sure Mr. Harvey don't mind if you just contact him. If you come up with something before the 60 days, you can just let us know.

We'll do that. All right. Thank you.

Number 10, an ordinance on demolition authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 411 Gilpy Drive. Gerald Allman, senior owner. Mr. Hester.

Residential structure, you can see in the pictures, it's a storm damage structure. This structure has severe roof damage. It has severe exterior wall damage, window damage, and it's open to the public and exposing to interior weather damage of the structure.

Mr. President, this time I'd like to offer into the record photographs of the subject property and proof of service through curator. This is a rehearing from April 15th. Mr. Bilbo.

Any cards?

No cards. 1515. 1515, please vote.

74.

Number 11, an ordinance ordering demolition and authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 902 Camellia Street, garage only. Matthew McIntosh, owner.

Mr. Hester. This is a residential, it's a garage only. You can see in the pictures there's some roof damage, there's some exterior wall damage, window damage, and it's all exposing the interior to severe weather damage of this structure.

Mr. President, this time I'd like to offer another record photographs of the subject property and proof of service to a curator. This is a rehearing from April 15th. I believe there's been some discussions by Mr. Rubin.

Mr. Rubin. Talk to Attorney Gene Thibodeau. He represents one of the lien holders. He's asking to defer this to June the 3rd. He'll be present on that date.

Mr. Fundale. Yes. We're deferring until June the 3rd. Yes, sir. Please vote.

7-4.

Number 12, an ordinance ordering demolition and authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 2725 Louisiana Avenue. Holly Ryder-Bruyette and Zoe Gaspard Ryder, owners. Mr. Hester.

And this is another storm damage structure, and you can see in the pictures it has severe roof damage to the structure, exterior wall damage, it's open to the public, exterior window damage, all exposing the interior to severe weather damage of this structure.

Mr. President, this time I'd like to offer the record photographs of the subject property in personal service. This is a rehearing from April 15th. No cards, Mr. Fundale.

I was contacted by the owner, and they asked for 60 days, and they'll take care of tearing it down themselves, so I want to give them 60-60.

60 days to tear the 60-60?

July 15th would be the rehearing.

Is it 60-60 or 15-60?

Well, yeah, I mean, y'all.

And it's 60 days to pull a permit and 60 days to tear down 60 days after the first number is the amount of time you give them to obtain a permit.

Okay, second numbers is the total amount of days they're given them. So you're giving them 60 days to obtain a permit.

Yeah, I need to give them more.

And then another 60 days. Are you tearing it down?

Yes.

So 60 and 120 is what you're saying? So you want to give them 60 to pull and then 60 to tear down. You don't want them to have it down in 60 days. Is that correct? 61-20. 61-20. 61-20. 61-20. Please vote.

Number 13 has been deferred to June 17th, 2026. Number 14, an ordinance ordering demolition and authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 2107 Corinda Street. Julius Lee Fontenot Sr. and Jennifer V. Fontenot owners. And being that they, well, we'll do it separate.

Okay. Mr. Hester. This is a residential storm damage structure, and you can see in the pictures, it has roof damage, exterior wall damage, window damage, all exposing the interior to severe weather damage of the structure.

Mr. President, this time I'd like to offer in the record photographs of subject property and proof of service through the Marshal's office.

And we do have a card. Mr. Fontenot, state your name and address for the record.

Julius Lee Fontenot, 2209 Clarinda Street, 70601.

Mr. Funtner, what would you like us to do with 2107?

I would like to go ahead on and tear it down, and if there's some way I can get some type of bids on that property for it to be torn down or however that goes. I'm not sure.

I think that we can kind of give him an estimate of what it would cost to tear it down if the city tore it down. Can we give him that?

Oh, yeah. We can give them that, huh? Mr. Hester, can we give them an estimate to demo it? Yeah. OK. Yeah, and then, I mean.

Go ahead. We'll go through the process. Give them the time to get the permit and complete it. And then once we receive the bids after that time lapses, we can inform him. And he can make the decision to either tear it down himself or let the city go ahead and do it.

OK, so Mr. Fontenot, after you leave here, you get with them and they can explain it better to you. OK.

I mean, the real quick explanation, you can find a contractor and tear it down yourself, or you can allow the city to do it, and what will happen is it will be applied to your tax bill, and you're gonna have to pay Yeah, one way or the other.

Yeah, but what Mr. Fundow wants to know is what he's weighing against if the city tear it down as opposed to him.

Right, I think that's it.

OK. That's 2107. So how much time, Mr. Harvey?

I think the quickest way to expedite it is 1515, since we're trying to get it turned down anyway, right?

Yes. And just to say, if something changed, your primary contact is Mr. Harvey. Yes, sir. That's so true. I'll treat him right.

So we give him 1515? What we saying, Mr. Fundow, is you got 15 days to pull a permit? and fifth, well, we need to give them long, cause they, they giving them a lot.

They giving them an estimate. Let's do normal delays, 36.

Normal delays, please vote.

Excuse me, one quick question. Yes, sir. You said something about a permit. I'm not sure what you, what you mean.

If you tear it down, you're gonna have to have a permit to tear it down.

It's a demolition permit.

But in the meantime, They're going to do their part, and then they'll inform you so that you can.

I have a question. Is that your, I assume you have a different, this is not your residence. No, sir. So he can't pull a permit and demo himself. He's going to have to have a licensed contractor pull the permit.

but all of that can be on hold until we.

Oh no, I understand that, but I just wanted him to understand that it's not, he's not gonna personally pull the permit.

You have to have a licensed contractor do it. No, if it was his residence, he could, but if it's a. Okay, and Mr. Fontenot is on number 15 as well. Number 15, an ordinance ordering demolition and authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 2105 Clorinda Street, Julius Lee Fontenot and Jennifer Valmont Fontenot owners. Mr. Hester.

This is another residential storm damage structure. You can see in the pictures, there's roof damage, exterior wall damage, exterior window damage, all exposed in the interior to severe weather damage of this structure.

Mr. President, this time I'd like to offer the record photographs of the subject property and proof of service through the Marshal's office.

And Mr. Fontenot, if I'm not mistaken, you want to keep this one?

Yes, sir, I want to keep this one. I have a permit on this one. We've already started doing work on it.

Okay.

Excuse me. So I do have a permit on that one. Okay.

good are you ready for me oh yeah i've been in constant contact with mr funder i'm good with taking it off and deferring it so um we can come back and get an update in 90 days okay he has a permit already so if if you don't mind we want you to come back in 90 days august 19th august 19th just to give us an update of your progress on this house in the meantime you want to get with mr bagueras and he'll tell you about the first house All right, thank you.

One more quick question. Yes, sir. Will you all contact me or?

No, from this point on, you have to do all the contacting.

OK, August 19.

Please, we don't have to vote for, do we have to vote for him to come back in 60 days, Mr. Stutes? 90 days? 90 days, yes. OK, please vote, 90 days.

74.

All right, thank you, Mr. Fontenot. Number 16, an ordinance ordering demolition to authorize the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 819 Mall Street. Brian Keith, Design LLC owner. Mr. Hester. I'm going to take Mr. Hester's place for this one.

This structure is located within the historic district. But the staff, we are recommending an emergency demolition for this. It is about to fall over. We've looked at it. We've determined that we have to take immediate action on getting this torn down under the emergency provisions of the code. I have the owner here. uh to answer any questions about you know they've looked at uh cost to to renovate the structure it is damaged beyond uh reasonable repair costs to get this thing back into commerce so we're recommending uh 1515 on an emergency basis for uh getting this structure torn down and mr uh The owners here representing the property, if you would like to have any questions.

Let me, Mr. President, if I may, offer into the record photographs of the subject property and proof of service through the Marshal's office.

Mr. Brian Vallier. Any questions for Mr. Vallier?

No, I don't have any questions. But the neighboring property to the north side, the question was about protection of their home during the demolition.

We will work through that issue. We had a very similar situation with a home on Peugeot Street. So we're going to meet with the contractor on site. Number one, to make sure that they are capable of doing it in a safe manner. That was the question for the or if he decides to do it himself, we will work with them to make sure that's taken. Thank you.

Number 17, an artist or the demolition. Oh, what was the thing? 1515, please vote. Number 17, an ordinance on a demolition that authorized the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 1751 Sixth Avenue. Burned structure. Rose M. George size owner.

Mr. Hester. And this is a severely badly burned structure. It's a residential structure. You can see in the pictures the roof is burned. There's exterior damage to the walls, windows, and it's all open to the public.

think there was a request to defer this it was requested this should have been deferred yeah did you win august 19th august 19th august 19th please vote i just have a passing question should i just hear that no i can explain okay uh this they found the sister from the size residents and she approved gave him the well you need to say he can get the House and one of the people will help him build it but the House had to be there for him to fit underneath the program right and they told on the House he won't fall in need to program so it had to be still standing and that's been a community came in with me and she told she wanted to come I said

And that's his residence?

That's his residence. So now it's his residence. First it was his mama's and his mama passed. So we had been trying to find him. Everybody was working hard, but they found his sister and she signed her part over to it. So now, so that the people can help them rebuild it. But the house had to be standing when they come to evaluate it.

So we deferring for 30 days?

It was 90 days because they had to go through the process and they're going to stay in contact with me.

If they get done beforehand, I'll let everybody know.

Mr. Weatherford, you had a question? I just had a thought more than a suggestion, but Yeah, I don't know if they, it's dangerous. I thought maybe if some sort of fence around it just to keep people out, not tear it down, not take it down, but just secure the, you can't secure the building, obviously, but secure the perimeter of the property.

Well, the perimeter has a fence around it. It's not down right there, but around the front and everywhere it has a fence. All right.

All right.

All right. Please vote. Number 19 has been deferred to June 17th, 2026. Number 20, an ordinance ordering demolition and authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 2401 Woodard Street. LaShara L. Stinson, owner, subject to a tax sale to the state of Louisiana.

Mr. Hester. You can see in the picture, this is a hurricane damage structure. It's a residential structure, and it's in severe badly condition. It's collapsing. The whole roof is collapsed. The exterior walls are collapsed. Winter damage all exposing the interior to severe weather damage of this structure.

Mr. President, this time I'd like to offer in the record photographs of subject property and proof of service through the Marshal's office.

I recommend 1515.

1515, please vote. Number 21, an ordinance on the demolition and authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for demolition of a structure located at 1206 Hunter Drive, branded at Alexis Henderson and Edward Joseph Henderson, owner subject to a tax sale to the state of Louisiana. Mr. Hester.

This is a storm damage residential structure. You can see in the pictures there's some roof damage, exterior wall damage, exterior window damage. It's open to the public, all exposing the interior to severe weather damage of the structure.

Ms. Bramaleigh Henderson. One second here.

Oh, I'm sorry. At this time, I'd like to offer in the record photographs of subject property, and I believe Mrs. Henderson is here to speak. Yes.

State your name and address for the record.

My name is Brandy Henderson, 12600 Drive. Okay. We got in touch with someone by home as is. Mm-hmm. Started in February, signed all the paperwork, everything. March, end of March. Did all that and haven't heard from them.

You need a little bit more time?

I've been trying to get in touch with them. Phone call, email, everything. Haven't heard from them. Don't know. I started March after everything. Started again when I talked to Ms. Shelly. Haven't heard anything.

She's buying it from you or you're buying it?

Buying it from me.

Mr. Bilbo?

How much time do you need?

Let's play it by ear. Let's give her 30 days and come back if you hadn't heard.

Well, I want to be, this one is you don't like it. I've been getting several, several complaints about this home. Four or five people on Hunter Drive call me all the time. They're vagrants. living in and out of it animals and they i really get a bunch of phone calls on it i would want to help her to say give us some time but if your time is just to sell it or you sell it or you your time is to fix it sell it but see that's that's not our I have a thing about the other people on Hunter Drive. If once you told me you hadn't heard anything, who you trying to sell it to, if you don't mind?

The company's name is Nation Home Buyers.

She didn't get all the paperwork for the sale. She's just waiting to hear back from you.

Do you have a purchase agreement? No, that's what I'm saying. I haven't heard anything. You just have some verbal discussion. There's no signed purchase agreement, so you haven't sold it. Yeah, exactly.

That's what Ms. Shelley talked about.

The person you're trying to sell it to, for whatever reason, it goes back.

Tommy, what if she secured the...

home well I'll give her I'll give her 15 days to give us an answer if she can sell it in these 15 days something could we did you say you started this in January February mid February March April it's May yeah so and that's the thing I've been trying to get in touch with these people since what do you want us to do I mean we have to make a decision I'm on your time you don't know

I'm on your time. I've been trying to sell it.

You want to maybe have her come to 14, have her come to our June 3rd meeting?

That's 14 days.

14 days. Yeah, that's two weeks.

So we're going to defer it until June. I mean, June the 3rd, June the 3rd. Come back and let us know if you hadn't heard anything. If you hadn't heard anything before then, you can call Mr. Bilbo before time.

There's no papers back there. I am so sorry. Name and address, please. My name is Linda Rideau. I live at 1210 Hunter, next to their property. And I've been here several times. They have given the Hendersons numerous times to do something. She has not lived in the house for three years now. That house has been vacant. They've done nothing since the hurricane. And I deal with their raccoons that are living in that house. I have to deal with all of the animals. And they have given her, y'all have given her a lot of time to do something to that home, and she's done nothing. They've done nothing. and I don't see that the man she's talking about, his name is Mr. London. Mr. London does not live in Lake Charles and he told me he was wanting to talk with them because they wanted to sell the house and he was going to look at it. I was there the day he went to look at the home. He told me he would get back to me if he had decided to buy the house. I had not heard anything from Mr. London and I don't think Mr. London is looking to purchase that house.

Ms. Rito, we're giving them the minimum amount of time. Either way, they got 15 days.

15 days? 15 days. 15 days. Is this for them to either start some type of action or just to demolish it?

That's to pull a permit and do what they're going to do with it. If they don't do it, then the city is going to tear it down.

Okay. Well, thank you because that's been too much with them. Okay. Thank you.

I appreciate it. 15-15. Please vote. 7-4. 28-2 has been deferred. Ordinances for final action. An ordinance accepting the lowest responsible bid and authorizing the City of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for project number CP3520, Wastewater Treatment Basin A, A02 Sewer Rehabilitation. Mr. Weatherford.

Yes, sir. We had three responsive and responsible bidders. And the lowest responsible bidder was Vortex Lining Systems, LLC. Their bid was in the amount of $3,291,701. And happy to say that that is 270 or so under the design, the engineer's estimate. Any questions or comments? My recommendation is we accept that bid.

Any questions or comments? Please vote. 24, an ordinance accepting the lowest responsible bid and authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter an agreement for project number CP3503, 2025 asphalt overlays and amend the budget as necessary. Mr. Bilbo. We had four responsive bids.

But based on information provided here above, we recommend the award of a project to Empire Dirt Works LLC in amount of $1,058,564.16. And I do want to let the council know that I was a responsive bidder, and Ms. Wendy has been in constant contact with me. with this process you was the sponsor i was a sponsor and she actually called me and i'm like i am so but just for future references you're supposed to let all of them i'm sorry for not telling y'all but she was she kept me updated with it and i'm next time i'm gonna tell y'all all right all right please vote

Number 25, before we go to that, the mayor wants to make a, you can read it, okay. Number 25, an ordinance authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter into an agreement with the most qualified architect engineering firm responding to the request for statements of qualifications to perform professional service to prepare cost estimates, provide engineering and design service, provide construction management oversight and other additional services as needed for the design and construction of an indoor recreation facility in Lake Charles.

Good evening council. I just want to This is a item to authorize the city and start negotiating an agreement to get The design of this sports complex that we've that we've been talking about for a while So I want to give you an update on on all the that has occurred we started off with the with the with the sending out a request for qualifications on in March that and to get qualified people to come in and design it's not the way the way the process works the city picks the designer makes a recommendation the council authorizes to get into a contract with them once the project is designed then it goes out to bid and once that those bids come in the council makes the determination of who's going to actually construct the facility So to walk you through the bid process, we sent out a request for qualifications on this project, and we wound up getting 15 responses. Two of the responses did not meet the requirements of the request for qualifications, so those were discarded. We had 13 that met the qualifications, and we formed an advisory committee to go through and review these processes. We had representatives from the city, the parish, local industry, OR3 recreation because of recreational components, tourism, and hospitality. And we got together and through that process we reviewed all 13 of the proposals and came up with five finalists to actually come in and conduct interviews. Those interviews were conducted on Monday and up on the board as to some of the questions we ran the standard set of questions so that we were comparing apples to apples on the responses and they covered a variety of topics from from reserving trees to to experience with the construction management at risk, which is the CMAR construction method, which we would prefer. And we did find out from the state that they have authorized us to go that route, which is going to expedite this process. And out of that, out of that, out of those five responses, we want to interview in five and I'll talk about all five in order. But at the conclusion of that process, the advisory committee took a scoring system and came up with a score that that compiled the the top rated firm. And what we're doing now is we need authorization to go and start contract negotiations to start getting the design in place. So I'll walk you through the top, the five that came in. First, let me start by saying that all five of these companies were extremely, extremely qualified to design this facility. because it serves three purposes. First and foremost, it is a community resiliency hub. This this facility is going to have to be able to withstand 140 miles an hour wind, have independent power sources, be able to stage recovery efforts. It is a city resiliency hub as put together in the Just Imagine plan, and that's its first and foremost function. The second function is to serve as a community recreation center to house different types of programs where the community can come in and utilize these facilities. because it does belong to the people. And then the third function is to serve as a nationally certified sports and recreation complex that can house nationally sanctioned tournaments. And that's the way of paying the bills, keeping the lights on so it doesn't become a burden on the taxpayers. out of the 13 people that responded all of them were qualified but the and the five it was very hard ranking them so when we got together with the five for the interviews that would be the deciding factor but to give you an idea uh i'll run through the five the first was grace design studios multi-studio which is also a national firm that's doing work in the cities right now they they actually designed the new press box at manganese stadium And they also designed the $26 million rebuild. Got the answers, too.

So I just had one question. Is it still confirmed that it's supposed to be the national scale size?

Yes, the mayor mentioned that in his presentation. And that's really much all I had. So I appreciate it. All right.

Any other questions? Just as part of the ordinance, it deals with uninsured motorists in Louisiana. Part of the ordinance is that the mayor of the city of Lake Charles, Louisiana, is hereby authorized to reject uninsured, underinsured motorists, bodily injury, and property damage coverage, as recommended by the city of Lake Charles' insurer and as authorized by Louisiana Insurance Code Title 22, Section 1406, effective as of May 22, 2026 through May 22, May 22, 2027.

So that means we're accepting uninsured motorists? No, we're rejecting uninsured motorists, which saves us money. Okay. Yeah. But does it put us more at liable?

Not really, no. I mean, uninsured motorists just means this. If... If someone rear-ended a brain surgeon in town and they only had $50,000 in coverage, then if the brain surgeon, that's a big claim, but they've only got $50,000 in coverage, he's not going to get much money from them. He can personally choose to have uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage for, say, $5 million. Gotcha. So he can't do surgery no more. That's a very big lawsuit. But the person who harmed him doesn't have any money and doesn't have any coverage. He can then sue his own insurance company for $5 million. We basically have people working for the city who basically wouldn't have those kind of claims and also they would be in the Of course, in scope of their business. So uninsured motorist just doesn't make sense for a business as opposed to an individual.

And it makes your premium go up. One other question. I read in there, we got $5,000 that they give us for safety.

Oh, yeah. Well, that's like just a little piece of coverage that they give you.

But to my understanding, it was $5,000 that they give us that we can do a safety program. Unless I read it wrong.

I'm not sure. I'll be honest with you.

Dana's here.

Good. Thank you, Dana. Don't want to steal your thunder.

Members of the council, the $5,000 that they give us, it can be used for anything that we like. We in the years past, we had a antique for lack of a better way to say it program for our risk management claims handling. We went in 2018 to handling our claims ourselves. So we began using that money to go towards the new claim system. So that way we could keep up better with actual the expenditures and handling of the claims.

Do we still need that 5000 for that particular program?

Yes, sir. It's ongoing. Now, we do have a safety program in place that we do. We have, you know, monthly safety meetings. We have Miss Howard actually oversees our safety program. We so we do have a safety program in place.

I was just wondering if we could use that $5,000 in other areas.

But I mean, to do that to justify what you're using it for. So for instance, in this instance, with the for the actual software that we lease, we actually have to have a invoice from them sent to the insurance carrier and then they pay them direct. So we don't get the money and then we disperse it. So for whatever we would choose to use it for, then we would have to have them actually directly

invoice the insurance company, but right now it's beneficial to us to use it for what y'all using it.

Yes, sir. It saves us it saves us about $10,000 for the claim software that we that we lease it annually. Yes, sir.

Mr. Well, yeah, well, I really don't have anything else that money is fungible, whether we say it's going to that are going to to the software if we're going to defray the cost of safety, it's still $5,000. It doesn't really change anything.

I just found it interesting that they was giving us that money, and I just wanted to know what it could be used for.

Yeah, that falls under our casualty coverage, so it's used to help reduce claims, obviously. Gotcha. In this instance, it helps us to manage our claims.

Gotcha. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Appreciate you, Mrs. Stutes. Any questions or comments? Please vote. Number 27, an ordinance authorizing the city of Lake Charles to accept North Ridge Road, West Mare Drive, Pinnacle Road, and the Ridge at Morgan Field phase three, including public right of ways, drainage, water, and sewer lines, sewer and traffic control devices for ownership and maintenance by the city of Lake Charles. The city of Lake Charles will not take ownership of detention ponds. Any questions or comments? Please vote. Number four. 28. An ordinance authorizing the city of Lake Charles to enter in an architectural and engineering agreement with D.W. Jensen and Associates LLC for engineering services relative to project number CP3070 Oak Lawn Drive and Horry Road Sewer Lift Station upgrade. Any questions or comments? Please vote. 29.

Somebody said, oh.

29, an ordinance authorized the city of Lake Charles to enter into a cooperative endeavor agreement with the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury and the Consolidated Gravity Drainage District, number two, East Calcasieu Parish, to share in the cost of the Greenwich Terrace Buyout Initiative project. Number 29, Ms. Carrie Withers, but before Ms. Withers come, you can come on, Ms. Withers, but I would like for Mr. Stutes to explain what this is so we don't have no misrepresentation or misunderstanding about what we're actually doing.

I'm actually deferred to Mr. Cardone because he has a better command of this than me.

Mr. Cardone. Yes sir this is if y'all recall Mr. Councilmembers that there was a buyout program initiated through the parish for buying out a lot of people that had repetitive losses in the terrace area those properties were bought out through that grant program and part of this is there were seven uh outstanding properties that did not participate in the buyout program and this allows the parish to go in there and buy out those additional seven properties they estimate the cost at around 240 000 and they're asking the city of lake charles to participate in that cost up to 120. so that's the remainder of the buyout program The intent of the property that will be used at this location will be a dry detention pond. The parish was able to get a grant for that dry detention pond, and it will provide additional drainage improvements throughout the terrace area and the surrounding area because of having additional detention in the area. The other component if you look at is a maintenance agreement. This detention, although it's located inside the city of Lake Charles, is still going to be owned by the parish or gravity drainage. It will not be owned by the city of Lake Charles. They came to us and asked us to cost share in the maintenance of this property. And our recommendation is that we enter into an agreement to allow us to participate up to one third of the cost between the city of Lake Charles the Calgary Parish Police during gravity drainage, with a total amount not to exceed $38,333 per year.

And Mr. President, just for more clarification, those seven homes are on General Moore Drive. That's the remaining seven homes that's at the periphery of the dry detention pond.

And is there an estimation of how much that money translates into for those properties?

Yes, sir. I mean, it's about $35,000. I don't know exactly each one, but it's approximately $35,000 if you divide it by seven.

OK.

I have a question. So when you say a dry drainage, are they digging? What are they going to do with that land?

detention? Mr. Farnell, I am not an engineer, but I know that these dry detention areas, you know, if you look at the one that was built on Louisiana Avenue, that is a wet detention, so it holds water all the time. This one is dry detention, so it will hold water, but it drains out to be completely dry, so it can be used as a green space when it's not being utilized as detention.

I rode in that area, and the ground is just kind of level from people's homes right across the street.

Yes, sir. It's not going to be level. There is, when you design a drive to attention.

Yes, sir. It will be lowered. So the people that we're going to buy out, what if they don't want to? be bought out.

I don't anticipate. If they choose not to be bought out, then I assume they can't be bought out. That's my anticipation. This is being managed by the parish, not by the city.

I mean, they're offering $35,000 for their property. That's right.

I didn't say $35,000. Mr. Marks asked, what would that average out to? The total estimate by the police jury was $240,000 for seven properties. And which properties, you know, some may be $20,000, some may be $50,000. I don't know because we didn't ask that. Okay.

name and address.

Okay, that's another.

So we're basically in this ordinance, I guess we're admitting to say that it's been up to 38,000. We'll just say we'll just say 40, whatever the number 38,000 plus, do we also need to put in that we're only our limit ourselves to 120,000 to buy the properties as well?

That is the intent. As far as well, it's not clear. I don't have no problem with the council.

So we can put those two. We. 124 and 38,000. I'd like us to amend this ordinance to explicitly state that it's the 120,000, half of the 140, and then one third or whatever the estimate.

Mr. I think you would read that the city's willing to participate for half the purchase of the seven properties, not to exceed 120,000.

It may be less. Right. I understand.

Because we don't even know if they have an agreement with these people yet.

Yes, sir. They've been talking to these people. We've met with them. If you ask me the specifics about it, I can't get into it. But they've been talking to them.

And so they believe they can get us out of it.

No, sir. But if they don't give it to us, if they don't go through, we get our money back.

Oh, I understand. But I'd like to know. I'm just thinking about pension pennies. With some recent occurrences, we've got to look at every dollar. It's the only reason I'm asking these questions. And did these seven people have the opportunity to participate in the bio program and why they did not?

I do not have that answer. I know. I know you don't. And let me say this.

Those are questions I'd like to ask the police jury before I agree to it.

And keep in mind, in order to qualify for, it's my understanding, in order to qualify for the buyout program, you had to have a repetitive loss. So I'm not quite sure if these did not have the repetitive losses, or at the time, they just not want to participate in the program.

So Mr. Vezina, are you saying you want to defer this until you get those answers, or what?

Well, it's just things that would make me feel good about us participating in something that we had some federal dollars. There was enough federal dollars there, I think, for these people to participate. And the parish administered the program. Now they're asking us, well, we made a mistake or we didn't get them all. Even though we got your federal dollars, now y'all come and give us some more money.

Mr. Villanova, if y'all want to defer, it's your privilege. The reason we're making a recommendation is because they are building a detention pond at no cost to the city, and it will definitely benefit the people in the terrace that have homes there and the surrounding area, because this area drains into Cochicoolie. So it's a tremendous benefit for that cost. I agree 100%.

But we also pay taxes for gravity drainage and repairs.

I understand. All right. So. So.

No, we don't have to defer.

Yeah, but you're right. But that is, we've all, most of us talked about this. Yeah. The city is in the parish. The city is in the parish. And we do pay property taxes, and it's $120,000. I know it's not a lot of money. But it is. But it's in perpetuity. We do have a $13,000.

I mean, the $38,000. The $38,000, yes, that's correct.

But it is going to benefit drainage and weeds. This really is a gravity drainage project. We handle draining our roads. But ultimately, in that area, it's gonna wind up ultimately in Coyote Coulee, and this is gonna hold water For a longer period of time so that Coach Akula can clear out. So it will be beneficial. Like I said, I'm not an engineer, but they're going to design that so that it benefits.

We've seen the immediate benefit from the detention pond that's on Louisiana Avenue. Those neighborhoods that were routinely flooding, it's been working for them.

And if you ever call on Louisiana Avenue, I mean, they built the detention pond. Gravity Drainage owns and maintains it. But we did participate in part of the purchase of land.

So I was going to ask that. So just just we got three cards. Think about it till after these three cards. Miss Withers, state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Carrie Withers and I live at 2729 Norgeon Wainwright. I'm not standing here in opposition. We, the people in the terrace, wanted to know what the city had plans for the properties. And those seven pieces of properties that the city and the police jury are trying to purchase, there are people that are living in those houses. And I doubt, very serious, and some of them have nice houses, I doubt that y'all gonna give them 2700, I mean 27,000 or 33,000. This is something that these people have worked for a very long time, and I'm pretty sure that they not just gonna let y'all come and give them peanuts for it. I know I would not live back there

But just for clarification, Ms. Withers, we are being asked to do that portion for the detention pond and to help with whatever they're going to pay those seven people. Now, whether or not, like Mr. Cardone said, whether or not they're going to buy it out or not, they're only asking for our participation. We don't have no kind of standing with it because we wasn't part of the program.

Right, I understand that. But the people want to know what the city and the police, your intentions about the property back there. And because we've been hearing all kinds of different rumors. And one of the rumors was about the retention pond. And some of them want to know, well, why are we getting a retention pond when they built one on Louisiana Avenue? It was supposed to be, I think, in our area. but they put one on Louisiana Avenue, now they're coming with a second one. So that was our concern. Yes, ma'am.

It's right to have that concern.

My question is, the parish can't force these people out of their homes, neither.

I'm not sure exactly how the parish is. Apparently, there's been a lot of discussions between the parish and the people, and they just said that this is how much money they need. I don't know if there's additional money, so that's all they have. I would imagine if people are actually living there, they're not going to sell their home for that kind of price, so... They just asked us to contribute.

I know one lady lived there and she don't want to move.

Then she won't move. And we're not going to be involved. That's not on us. And the thing is, if they're not going to move, they're going to need a detention pond back there.

But going back to what Mr. Veason are, I think it would be worthy to have the parish over here to explain this, what we're doing before we.

So you want to defer it?

Yes, I'd rather defer it too because all I want, like she's saying, these people want to know what's going on, want to update, and we can afford them that.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you, Ms. Withers.

Thank you.

Miles Brown. Okay. Paul Geary.

Good afternoon, Mr. President and guys.

Good afternoon.

My problem is the Bible. 2205 Highway 14, 70601. I hope I'm in Lake Charles. But anyway, you know, this is business for me because the terrorists, that's a viable community. That community ain't never flooded. I'm going to tell you what's the problem with all this development going on around here. And I know the first round was the state. They come up with $30 million. Why didn't take some of that $30 million and fix some of this drainage around here? And I'm settling with these guys. Yeah, that's the first thing I bring. We paying drainage to the parish and road maintenance. So why we got always put in? They the ones. But you know what? I've been noticing the Contraband Bayou been real high, even on this state 10. I know about this waterway. I ain't never seen it that high, except when it's high tide. Something going on with this waterway. And one thing I know about drainage, somebody got the flood to save the rest of the people. So you pushing the water back in the city. This in the middle of the city. How in the hell are we, oh, excuse me, y'all. You take that back.

Understood.

It's serious business what we're dealing with. Right. You're destroying the community. I'm looking at voting strength in our district. We losing people. Where they going to build, buy some more property with the money they want to pay them? Right. To me, that's the second most real. Now they want to buy out a problem the way it went. Guess what? They undressed them with these storms and this weather, undressed our local government, what they ain't been doing. Caught them with their pants down. So now they want us to be the sacrifice again. Well, I'm tired of sacrifice, and I'm sure this community's tired of sacrifice. So I'm suggesting y'all, I wouldn't go along with that battle, because I don't know nothing of Paris when these co-op and devil grievance, I ain't never seen a way to benefit us in the city. It's mostly on they side. So I'm asking y'all not to support that. I don't care if it's $50,000. But what's going on, I see we losing our community. Hey, that's a viable community, man. Been there for years. It didn't flood till the 80s. Then it came back, back to back. It's telling us something they're not doing right with our money. So I'm thinking y'all really think this through. Because you're killing the community, killing our voting strength in that district. and taking the economics out too. We already with no business. Big old raggedy building we got down the street over there. They got one tenant down there, one tenant. so something we need to be done about this all right but you know that's just me I just appreciate y'all time okay but hey I'm from community too thank you Mr. Gere you have a great time so Mr. Fundale you want to make a motion that is no I want to raise the question for further discussion y'all think we ought to let these people know more information if you'd like to defer

I'd like to make a motion that we defer this. Well, can I speak first?

Yes, sir. I'm sorry.

I live in District C. I was young enough.

I remember the flood in the 80s. I had an escalade. I went and got people out the last big flood. When they had that flood, these people was terrified. I'm not worrying about that's the parish buyout, but we need to get this detention pond where we have another flood, they gonna lose their homes. They're not gonna get anything from it. Cause the next time to my understanding, they not giving you no more insurance after we have another flood, right? FEMA saying a lot of like, if people came in, if you elected to stay, you might not get flood insurance anymore. Right. So that means you don't have flood insurance and we sitting here arguing with the parish that we can cause them. You know what I'm saying? Are we sure that the parish is going to come? I've never saw a parish at the city council meeting.

Well, but we got to invite them. So we can't just say because they never go come or whatever. We need to answer these questions so that we are known to go forward with the detention point because they're going to do the detention point. They're asking for our help.

So that may not be the case. Yeah. But so I would 38,000 go stop. Well, I don't know. They you know, originally they wanted us to take this over the detention pond over and we negotiated with them and told them, no, they're going after a grant. They've got the grant. They're designing it. They're willing to put it out for bids and build it. I mean, I'm not saying they would just walk away from it because I believe it's a good project for the area. And we've had a lot of issues there. But to say that if we don't participate, I mean, it's possible they could say, well, it doesn't mean anything to the city, doesn't mean anything to them.

Well, I'm not saying not to participate. I'm saying that we could at least ask more questions, have the parents come here and answer the question.

I think that's a viable request for them. OK, OK. It's a bad idea.

So can we when we trying to do this next meeting?

OK, I would say next meeting and we'll make a motion invites. We'll invite somebody from. OK, so we.

You got something.

yes today okay so we're gonna do I make a motion that we defer until the next regular City Council meeting June 3rd June 3rd to have a representative from the parish and gravity drainage come and explain to us item number 29 29 second Second by Mr. Viginal. All those in favor, please vote. I mean, any questions or comments? Questions or comments? Please vote. Number 30, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Charles, amending resolution number 31323 to authorize the City of Lake Charles to modify the location and scope of RCIP LDI City of Lake Charles, LCRR Railroad Avenue, Revital 0088 in order to transfer funding to the Gospel Community Center to construct a primary Community resilience hub and accords with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's national objectives for the use of funds at CDBG DR grant DR program Mr. Mayor

And even again, Councilman, this is one of the the disaster recovery are still grants that that we had this. The original application was for this one is to be allocated to Reverend Avenue. And prior to coming in that that project was canceled for for whatever reason, and now it's time to get the state a final determination what to do with those funds. Now, I want to make a correction. This is not to build another resiliency center. Right now, there's two primary resiliency hubs that's that's coming up that the city is gonna own in perpetuity to help with recovery. One is the sports complex, the next one is the next item on the agenda. This one is to rebuild the recreation center. If you pull this up, the guy sport, that project had four million dollars, between four and three and a half million dollars, because some of the funds is being proposed to fill gaps for some of the other projects that are going through. But what we did was already just this past year and this year, this summer, we're opening up. We put a brand new pool out there at Gospel Recreation Center. And currently we have a new splash pad that's being designed. and about to go out to bid because the previous splash pad that was out there was old and antiquated and they don't make parts for it anymore. Plus it's located away from the pool area. So we relocating it right next to the pool area. So you have some consistency there. But the gym, the building, the current Gospel Recreation Center that's there was built in the 1940s. We're concerned about putting new wine in old wine skins. It's not overly functional. It's a tight building. It doesn't function for what it does. The HVAC, the central air unit, is old. It's outdated. It costs a lot of money to operate. For our pool, there's no shower area. And so it gives us an opportunity to do several things. And I'll talk to you a little bit about the design of the recreation center itself and then what effect we think it's going to have in the community. If you look... The current building would be at the bottom, but we want to build a new building at the top of it. And that building is going to be facing Shattuck Street. And if you look at the renderings to the pictures on the right, you can see what that picture would look like. That building would look like. It'd be a new modern building for Gospel Recreation. We will take the playground that's currently on the corner and move it right by the splash pad. So that whole area, you'd have the pool, the splash pad, and the playground. You have seating areas, there's a restroom there. And that whole area would be fenced in so that the only way to access into that area would be through the building. Where the existing building is now is at the bottom, and we propose to take that out, and that was already a proposal to put a putting green, but we want to put in an 18-hole putt-putt course because we think that's going to provide more interactivity for the recreation center. What we're trying to do is make the recreation centers now the centers of the communities where the community gathers. It also has walking paths, a new parking lot at the top part, But with the building facing out to Shattuck Street, it makes it more functional. And if you go to the next slide, The inside of the building would stay true. You'd have the gym that you have so that it would still function as a sports recreation facility, but it's also a place where you can have large gatherings, meeting rooms. I think we had talked about putting in a kitchen in that area, and you would actually have the showers and everything would be facing out toward the pool area. And because we've been talking with the state about its Grow Healthy Louisiana program, It has an elevated walking track upstairs too, so it should fit a whole lot more needs than what we've done here. Now the reason, if you can go back to the first slide, the reason why this fits so well is because with the pooling area, now we anticipate a lot of energy there, But around that area, because of the storms and because of this investment, there's a lot of open lots now. And we think that's a great opportunity for some infield development. The fifth floor, the community development department, we've been talking about incentivizing development through our home program, maybe using CBDG funds to help to incentivize private builders to go in and build homes for home ownership. and start revitalizing the community. And it makes sense because in these areas we already have roads, sewer, water, electricity, so that infrastructure's there. Most of those properties we have some control over, so we can actually make the margins work for these people and build housing, resilient housing, most of this area outside the 500-year floodplain, so it makes sense to put that kind of investment in. uh that similar effort that's this is this is a this is a variation of the same type of effort that we're putting into the mid-city area uh the the choice neighborhood you know we we're building roads and infrastructure in there putting in parks putting in mixed income housing and stabilizing those communities and we think there's a chance to do that here especially with its proximity to to the downtown to i-10 area and to the school districts that can serve it because uh eventually And we think that eventually, if one St. Louis Catholic high school moves, And if Hamilton Christian does not stay a high school, you only have one high school north of I-210, and that would be Washington Marion. So it makes sense that you have schools in that area that we can get this type of investment and development in. So I think it's low-hanging fruit. We did talk to the state about it because the state had indicated that that uh that that these the projects were in place and we pitched that to them and they thought it was a great idea so they so they they said they were supported but obviously we can't submit that to the state without an ordinance so i'm asking for your support on that if there's any questions No, the state, no, we presented it to the state. We haven't submitted it formally because they said to come back, get an ordinance.

So that's how you are changing from resilient, you're taking the resiliency hub off?

Yeah, we don't need that to be a resiliency hub because we...

So this original project was a project that was for the... Street, am I right? You mean the monies? The monies for the street.

Yeah.

They're called Railroad Avenue Project.

Railroad Avenue, yeah.

So the state is allowing us to do a new project now, create a recreation center.

Well, the reason why they're doing that is because the Railroad Avenue Project was canceled.

Okay, so... We canceled the Railroad Avenue project and the state is allowing us to create a new project.

We canceled it? Yes.

We canceled the Railroad Avenue project.

That was canceled before I got in office, but it's my understanding that that's been canceled.

And the state is allowing us to. This is a new project. It's not a modification of an old project. This is a new project. So the state allows us to take GBC money and do new projects.

No, they said under this circumstance. Under this circumstance. Yeah, they saw the investment that we had done and the opportunity for redevelopment in a low and moderate income community, so they said that they would consider that.

I don't disagree with that, but I'm just saying the state do allow us to do new projects. According to what you've written here.

Yeah, I would say this one in particular because the head of the Office of Community Development came in, we pitched it, and she said that that's something that they would consider, but we need to get an ordinance to modify the ordinance that was already in place.

Go ahead. If it's a new project, what are we modifying?

uh with the ordinance the first ordinance that was in place apparently that was the ordinance already for railroad avenue so that would be that would require a move and then because we're not doing a street or whatever streetscape was in that we're asking them to modify it so that we can build a recreation center but this is saying the city of lake charles to modify the location and scope right so we're not modifying the location and scope we're doing a whole nother project Well, yeah, I think the location has to be in a low and moderate income community.

Yeah, I agree with that.

So that's the modification. But the scope is not a street anymore. Now it's a recreation center.

So that's what I'm saying. So if I'm understanding Mr. Fundale right, let me just ask this question and use your attorney's skills. If I modify something, that's taking something that I already have, reshaping it to do something else.

That's exactly right.

If I have a project that was scheduled to be a streetscape and now I'm doing a building That's a new project. That's not modifying that streetscape.

Yeah. And I don't know how to I mean, that's the wording here, but I don't know exactly how the state is. They just said that those because those funds were the project that those funds were dedicated to was canceled, that this could go toward a recreation center under these circumstances.

OK, so let me just actually this when we send the application in because you did say the application had been sent in when we sent it in, we sent it in as a rec center.

Yes.

It has not been sent in.

No, we have not sent in. The application has to have an ordinance.

They just talked with the state and they gave preliminary without an application. They just gave word. I mean, they just gave general hate. There's nothing riding nowhere. So it's still in the discussion mode, right?

But no, Mr. Finley, we've been talking with the state pretty much since I've been in office about all of these projects. I mean, and let me back up a little bit because the way these funds, these particular disaster recovery funds are, they're a grant from the federal government to the state of Louisiana. So the federal government is the grantor. The state is the grantee and the city is a sub recipient, which means the city, the state is entrusting the funds to the city and we're responsible for those funds.

Let me let me say for the record, I'm in support of what this thing is, but I want the council not to be. We need to understand clearly how this process work. Now, the thing of it is, is so the state that that project was was was squashed before you took office and it's been there and it never came before the council you got to talking with the state and already decided where you wanted to go with it then you're coming back to the council to say let me go with this well when we first got in the state told us that if any project was not viable take the money and put it to another project another existing project but we was under the assumption mr craig

We told them, look, we think, well, we talked to them about this particular project. And they said, once we told them what we wanted to do and why the infield development and the potential for that investment in the community, they said, well, that's something that they would consider and take on the advisement. But they wanted an ordinance first before they do it.

Mr. Marks. If I could, if I offered you could possibly amend the ordinance to say location and nature of RCIP, if that would make the council more comfortable in terms of scope instead of scope.

I think the problem is we've been told on many occasions that OCD is not taking any new projects. So the question is— when did this new project get accepted? Because if the application hadn't been sent in, we sending in a new project, but we being told that they not accepting new projects.

They told us flat and clear, they're not taking any new projects that these funds have to be reallocated. But when they came in and met with us, we told them, look, There's other places we can put this, but we thought that this would be better serving the community if we could put that somewhere around that would do that kind of service.

And I understand that, Mayor, but I'm just getting lost on we're not accepting any new projects. Right. Yet we haven't sent this application in, but we finna send it in as a new project. So if they're not taking new projects, how are we going to get this in? Or is this grandfathered under something else?

No, I will say this. That's it for me. I think I was very passionate about telling them how important these funds are and if they invest in the right places that they will do well. This is funds that otherwise you would have the city's responsible for so they defer to us because we're the sub-recipients. So eventually we're going to make this work. They said they know that parks and recreation centers do not generate funds. They're usually just for quality of life. And they understand that in order to do things with a low and moderate income, you need to meet national objectives because of the infill opportunities. They're right around this park. That's eight empty lots. That means the objective of eliminating blight, stopping decay in the community and getting reinvestment back. So once we pitch that to them, they say, you know what, we'll consider that one, but come back to us with an ordinance for it. Okay, let me ask you this.

When did the deadline hit for no new projects? When did OCD say, hey, we've exceeded that deadline, no more new projects. What was that date? Mark knows.

That was initially from the very beginning. Once we submitted, we had deadlines to meet. There would be no more new applications afterwards.

Okay, but has that deadline changed?

No.

So right now, that deadline was when?

I don't remember exactly when, but I mean, you're probably talking now about two and a half years ago.

Okay, so can we have that? Can I have that deadline, whatever that is? Can I have that information about when that deadline was?

I can provide it to you.

Did it allow this because there was impediments with the original? Is that what happened here?

But based upon that, I understand what the mayor is saying. The other project failed. We're moving the money. What I have a problem with or what I'm not understanding is we've been told countless number of times, no new projects. So I'm thinking that we had already sent these projects in. So that's why we were covered. But now that I'm hearing we have no application in, so we send in a new project. Unless we got something in writing from OCD that's saying, hey, y'all didn't do it in time, but we're going to let y'all go past that deadline. That's what I'm trying to find out. Because if not, we're gambling on this. Because if we send in a new project and they say, hey, we're not taking in no new projects, according to what y'all saying, we're spinning our wheels here. We may need to find another area.

They told them they can send it in, so they know they can have a new project. Well, they said no. They said they talked to him verbally. They know they're going to have it. The state has okayed them to send in the new project.

That the state has okayed? Okayed to have a modified application. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. So it's not a new application. It's a modifying.

No, it's not modified. It's not modified.

Well, no, no. Well, it's not. It's modifying the application. So it may be semantics. It's modifying the application. but that is resulting in type of project and the specific location of the project.

No, that's not what they say. They say modify the location and scope. So they're modifying, it's a change of project. It's not a modification.

Well, they're saying the scope of the project. So they're, we're talking semantics here to some extent.

No, we're not talking semantics because this ordinance is written by us. This is not OCD writing this. I understand that. So what I want to know is OCD going to say, hey, This project is a new project. We can't accept it because we're being told that they can't accept no new projects.

Well, they're saying they're modifying the scope of the project so that they're there are telling us or this artist that yes, you're there is a project and you're modifying the scope of that project. And I don't know that it sounds like maybe the reason or what Mr. Stu says is that they're the railroad project for whatever is not viable.

I agree.

And so then you move on. We need to move it to another row.

No, no. I'm saying what I'm asking is I would understand all of this if the application had been sent in. We have yet to send an application is what we're finding out tonight.

Mr. Marks, if I could make just a quick comment. I think Mr. Stoots said if modified gives you all heartburn, we could say change.

No, no. Modified, that don't give me the problem. Okay, but let me just finish.

I'll happen to be in a meeting with the head of OCD with the mayor. And they originally said, from what Mark has shared with us, that we could not add any more new projects. And that conversation with the head of OCD, we walked through this, pitched to Gosport. They informed them what we did with the pool and other stuff that we have done at Gosport. She felt it was a good, viable project. And she said, get an ordinance. Now, will they come back and say, you can't do it? But they led us to believe in that meeting. If we get an ordinance, they would approve it.

and that's all we can do and and I understand that perfectly yes sir but all I'm saying is if this is a new project which it is because it's we're not modifying the streetscape and saying hey we're changing it from a streetscape to sidewalks that would be a modification we're going from a streetscape to building a new building That is, in my opinion, and that's OCD. Unless we can get some clarification from OCD of what a new project is. And I'm only asking that is because we haven't sent the application.

That's why I'm suggesting if y'all want change, modify to change. So you're changing the location and the scope. You're not modifying. You're changing it completely.

But even if we do that, Mr. Cardone, even if we change the wording, we still know that the application has not been sent in. Well, so if the application hasn't been sent in.

Obviously, you talked to him about the conversation was about a resiliency center because that's why you got it in here.

No, no.

The conversation with OC. Why? Well, why would you just throw resiliency center in the in the thing?

If you look at the wording of 31 and 32, I think whoever put this in, they just use the same wording. It was always there's no recreation center. There's a clerical mistake.

Yes, there's a clerical mistake. Adding a whole word called resiliency. No, no, no.

What you're saying is that that that there's two projects that are adjacent to each other.

And it says in here construct a primary community resiliency hub. And you're saying it's in this and you never talked to OC. So we was going to approve something that you never even discussed.

I don't have the agenda in front of me, but you say the next item has the same ordinance.

I clarified at the very beginning that this is that. we can approve this and then obviously come back and say no it's still got to be a resiliency well we know now we need to that we need to we need to remove that from that's what i'm saying that's why i said at the very beginning that this that this is not a primary resiliency hub it's going to be built to resilient standards but there's only two primary resiliency hubs that we're proposing the only reason why this one came up is because and i don't know how ocd uh makes the determination but it may have been that because this particular project was canceled And maybe they felt they had that kind of flexibility. I don't know.

This project was never a resiliency hub.

I'm not saying it's a resiliency hub.

I agree with what you're saying, Mayor, about the wording. We can correct the wording. Correct that, yeah. whether it's a new project or not yes yeah because my my thing is an application i was led to believe maybe it's my misunderstanding or not that all these projects we've done applications were sent in and they were approved that's what i was under the assumption now i'm finding out tonight there has never been an application sent in about this but we've been told that you can't send in no new applications now we're sending in a new application would just like some sort of clarification that OCD is going to accept this not just word of mouth like we asked before because we might have to do another project.

I have a question did we submit an application for railroad Avenue? Yeah that was it that was there was an application so there is an application for railroad Avenue right it can't be done so we are changing modifying the The grant request is being modified, so we do have a grant request. The OCD is not going to take any action regarding that request to change until they have an ordinance. Now, you feel good that they're probably going to accept it, but they may choose to reject it, which means then we're going to have to submit. And that's why I'm asking about the— We're going to have to modify it again.

And if I'm talking to the head OCD, I'm going to presume that she's talking from her authority. But she understood what we were trying to do and why. She understood the pool and investment that was already put there. She thought it was a great opportunity instead of using the 1940s building to go ahead and get this place fixed up. And they understood what we're doing in Mid-City and everything else. So this makes sense.

I agree with you, Mayor, 100%. All I want clarity on, new project. I want clarity on new project. Because if we can submit some new projects, then that put us in a whole different ballgame.

and that may be a matter of time you just shared with me please well we were just um talking about the ordinance you know that they were as as long as you you know to to add something you had to to that list that original list we had 14 projects and i think it's five or six of them came off for various reasons that you'd have to submit enough you know an ordinance to get and i get that and we have to correct this wording

And by submitting your ordinance, it makes sure that you check with the council that the council agree with it. That's why she required the ordinance. If it didn't require an ordinance that the council, then you wouldn't be asking the council for a vote on it. So my implication is saying that she's saying, okay, I agree. now make sure the council agree with it too give me an ordinance that's a true statement that's okay yeah and i'm and all i'm saying is we can change we could have a new project and we're not told that information i'm agreeing with you mayor we can correct the wording

and we can submit the ordinance. I just want to note, being that we have never sent in an application, because I am positive we were told that applications had been sent in on all of these projects. And now we're hearing nothing has been sent in. So we put ourselves in the position of a new project, which we are being told they're not accepting any new projects.

And it could be that they see this as a modification or revision because the project was canceled. I don't know. Can we just ask to get some clarity on it in writing? I think and the way I've seen with OCD is that they're telling us, Get us this in. Like I said before, they're looking at the whole.

I understand what you're saying, Mayor. But for six months, I've been hearing OCD tell us this. OCD say we need to get this in. We're willing to get it in. I don't see what's the problem we're getting. We're still at an impasse because now we're back to we can't get anything from OCD. That's what it seems like. Go ahead, Mr. Harvey.

I have a question. Point of clarification. Mr. Tisno. You made a comment, and maybe I misunderstood, but you said that there's no true deadlines for any of the projects?

No, I didn't say that.

Oh, you didn't say that?

No true deadline?

I asked, what is the deadline? If we got new projects, what is the deadline?

But there's no, I'm sorry, in that respect, yeah, you're right. Well, I don't know about, you know, there being a deadline.

Okay. There's no deadlines on any?

I only know of one deadline, and that was the one from the original. And, I mean, I can get that for you guys, you know, in the morning. But from the original one, we had to submit everything to OCD.

What was the original deadline? That's what I'm saying.

I don't remember. But I mean, you're talking about two years ago.

You know, that was on the 14th project. That's right.

Yeah.

So if it was more than two years ago, it was the previous administration.

Well, but that don't change the deadline. It don't have the deadline. I agree with you.

That's true.

Only reason I'm asking and I'm not trying to first of all, let me just for the sake of staying on task, I'm for this project. I think it's a great project. I think it was a great recommendation. As I've told the administration before, there's a lot of people in the audience tonight, a lot of people who are going to listen to this. We do need to be able to convey to the constituents why we're not moving forward with the Railroad Avenue project. I'm for this project. I want to make sure I'm clear with that. I think it's a great project. It's going to be a great asset to District 8. But we do need to communicate with the constituents because we did go on a trail telling people what we were going to do with the Railroad Avenue revitalization. That's for the record. When you said there's The deadlines, the reason why that sparked interest with me is because of other things that we've initiated, not trying to go back in the past. But I was always told that we had to get things done because of a deadline. But now I'm hearing there's no deadline. It's the first time I'm hearing this tonight. So that's why I'm asking for clarity, because if we never had any deadline, you said all the projects, right, that were submitted within this grant.

Yeah, in respect to deadlines, we had a deadline before for all applications. So when he asked about a new deadline, I'm just saying, I don't know of a new deadline.

And just for clarity. what Mark is saying, we had original date with the original projects. I understand that. But in the last couple of months, we were told that we can't submit any new projects. And here we come tonight, and in my opinion, we're submitting a new project. So I am asking if we can submit new projects, what is the deadline? It has to be a deadline now for the new projects. And if it's not, then it's not. But I'm still hung up on the fact that we were told you can't submit any new projects. And to me, this is a new project. No matter how we word it, when it goes to OCD, they gonna see we had money allocated for a streetscape and now we building a building.

So what they are allowing us to do again is to submit a modified application. I understand what you're talking about in terms of what it seems like to you. That's what they are allowing us to do.

And that's all I want is clarity from OCD so we don't keep having these discussions.

Mr. Mark, if I could ask you a question. The railroad streetscape project, which we're saying we're not doing, was it part of the original?

Yes. It's on that list.

It was what was submitted.

it was it was it was a part of the original budget if what that there's a there has been an application submitted was it really okay that's what i'm saying has it been changed once already and then changed it was on the original no it was it was has this list been changed since it was taken off is it possible that railroad avenue was taken off just maybe yeah well yeah this part i don't know what he has i can't see it but that's in the back of the book yeah The original 14 should be there.

And Railroad Avenue is not on either list. So I'm assuming that that was, because I know that Railroad Avenue was on the original application.

It was removed for some reason.

I think if you look at number eight on that list, this is not, I don't think this is the original list because this actually has gospel on it.

Well, that's another question. And it shows that there's a resiliency hub.

Again.

I think that could be modified.

And it shows number five, that's a primary community resiliency hub.

I don't have a problem with the wording. Like, Mr. Stoots, what are those words that you say we can put in there, rec center and something else you said?

You could change it to, I would suggest modify the location and nature because you're changing it to a different project.

And more scope is, I mean, if that's what y'all want to change, I'm fine with it. But I think the important thing is that we're modifying a previously submitted application. Now, a question may be from a particular councilman is why why couldn't we have modified it to have a different project, potentially in your district? Or my district?

Well, it couldn't go in my district because I don't think I have an area that qualifies.

Oh, no, but that would. I want to know at one point of this, For me, all this is Harvey's. So if Harvey's fine with it, why are we arguing about something that Harvey's fine with it?

Because we're the city council of the city. When they moved the sports complex, everybody voted. Yes, so we're voting again if Harvey wants it. No, we're voting if the council wants it. If the council wants it.

So that's what we call so we can get to a vote.

Discussion. We've got to finish discussion first.

I've got to go see my daddy, y'all.

If you're ready, you can... i gotta see my pops okay i mean i mean if you want to we can call the question you can ask to call the question if you get a second we can that ends discussion i'm not saying you may or may not want to do that but that's an option you can call a question if you want to call the question if you're ready to vote and if you get a second and if it's modifying it to my understanding it was already there right Well, it was in their area. It was in the same council district.

No, but it was the Railroad Avenue. That's correct. They're modifying it because they already had submitted the Railroad Avenue. If you redo it, now it's a new project. They're saying modifying because it was already filed for railroad. It wasn't approved, so they're keeping it in Harvey District.

But it wasn't filed. It's a modified application. It's a modified application.

The application never changed. It's just modifying it.

It's not a new application. We're modifying a previously submitted application.

The project is being modified, not the application.

Not the application. Well, the application is being modified, or the project is too, but it's not a brand new request.

It's not a brand new request.

It is a brand new request.

It is a brand new request. If you've got to fill in the application, if you've got to send another application, it's a brand new request.

And I think the language that they're saying is that the city... Whatever project they had in there, they want an ordinance where the city is asking, can you modify this? Can you modify it to put this in this location for this particular purpose? Here's the thing, Mayor. I don't know how the OCD deals with whether it's a new project or not. This is the ordinance that they requested.

I'm going to say it again. I don't have a problem with the ordinance. What I want clarity on, I want people to stop telling me things and come back later and changing it. We've been told you cannot do new projects. You cannot do this. You cannot do this. We talked to OCD. They told us this. And we still have yet to get anything on paper that would eliminate all of this arguing, all of this talking. We have yet to get anything on paper. We have got nothing on paper.

So what would you want answered before we can move forward?

We can go on and vote on this. That's what I'm saying. But I'm not going to let nobody rush me into doing something because of whatever the reason is. I have been asking for paperwork from OCD since you got in office. And I'm not saying you personally, but that's how long it's been since the beginning of this term. And we have yet to get paperwork from OCD.

Mr. Marks, what OCD sent us in recently, and I think we shared that with the council, was that they were authorizing a total $58 million grant. This is, whatever this is doing, they're saying send them an ordinance if we want to modify because Railroad Avenue is no longer viable. The project has been canceled. If we want to move it to that, send them an ordinance where the city is saying modify it. Now, the head of OCD said that she thinks it's a great project and she thinks it's going to go through. But they're going to do all of this stuff at one time because they've authorized the $58 million. Now they want us to make progress and give them the final projects. Either they're going to say it goes here or it's going to have to go back to some existing project. That's going to be their call.

Mayor, all I'm asking for is for clarity on whether this is a new project where the OCD has some documentation they can give us to say, hey, we're gonna go forward with that. I don't have no problem with this ordinance. I just want, when we send this ordinance out, I want the council to receive something because we've been in limbo for a long time now. We've been going on y'all word. What y'all tell us, hey, y'all talk to them. They say this gonna do this. We went along with it. And now it's getting to the nuts and bolts to where it has to be documentation to support this.

Mr. Morris, this is a recommendation. I mean, y'all can accept it or reject it. At that point, if you accept it, I send it to OCD. We'll get whatever answer they're going to give us. If you reject it, then that money has to go somewhere. I don't know.

Okay. My vote is to vote for it like it is. So if y'all ready to vote, if y'all ready to rush and vote, let's vote.

I want to remove. It's not a primary resolution. We need to remove that language. It's the Recreation Center. I want to remove that language.

Do you want to make a motion to amend the word primary out of the ordinance?

You can say it's going to be built to a resiliency standard, which I think we have to do anyway.

Yeah, that's required of any kind of building.