April 17, 2003

Lake Charles, Louisiana

The Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, met in Regular Session at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 17, 2003, in the Police Jury Meeting Room of the Parish Government Building, 1015 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana, with The Honorable Chuck Kleckley, President, presiding, and the following members present:

Mesdames Luvertha August, Elizabeth Conway Griffin, and Sandra J. Treme; and Messrs. Francis Andrepont, Algie Breaux, Brent Clement, Calvin Collins, Mike Danahay, Enos Derbonne, Chris Landry, Charles S. Mackey, D.D.S., Don Manuel, and Cornelius “Cornie” Moon

Absent: Hal McMillin (death in family)

Also present were Mr. S. Mark McMurry, Parish Administrator, Mr. Bryan Beam, Assistant Administrator, Mr. Jerry Milner, Director of Finance, Mr. Claude D. Smart, Parish Engineer, Mr. Allen L. Smith, Jr., of the firm of Plauche, Smith and Nieset, Legal Counsel, Mrs. Kathy P. Smith, Recording Secretary, Mr. Gerry Trahan, Director of Facilities Management, and Mr. Jim Vickers, Director of Planning and Development.

President Kleckley called the meeting to order. The invocation was pronounced by Mr. Collins which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The roll was called with the result being as outlined above.

President Kleckley welcomed everyone in attendance and asked those who would like to address the Police Jury to fill out a “Request to Appear” form and submit it to the staff. He also asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off or set on a suitable mode so they would not interrupt the meeting.

Motion was made by Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Mrs. Griffin and carried unanimously that issuance of the following Special Events Permit be ratified:

Type C Permit to allow alcoholic beverages for the special event:

CALCASIEU PARISH SHERIFF POSSE TRAIL RIDE

April 26 and 27, 2003

5257 Elliott Road, Lake Charles, LA 70605

Joseph S. Pierfax, Jr., Applicant

(Enos Derbonne’s District)

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Upon motion made by Mrs. August, which was duly seconded by Mrs. Treme and carried unanimously, the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Police Jury dated March 20, 2003, were approved, and the reading of same was dispensed with.

President Kleckley advised that Dr. Bertrand J. Foch, Regional Administrator and Medical Director of the Region Five Office of Public Health, would at this time make a special presentation of the Louisiana Public Health Association’s Public Service Award, which was given annually by said association to an elected or appointed public official at the local, state, or national level in recognition of extraordinary contributions to, and support of, health programs in Louisiana. President Kleckley further advised that this year’s recipient, as announced at the Association’s Annual Meeting in New Orleans on April 10^th, was Calcasieu Parish Administrator Mark McMurry. President Kleckley pointed out that Mr. McMurry had been unable to attend the award ceremony in New Orleans due to scheduling conflicts, and Dr. Foch was asked by the Association to make the presentation on its behalf at a meeting of the Police Jury in Calcasieu Parish.

Dr. Foch then appeared before the Police Jury and introduced Mrs. Christine Nicholson who had nominated Mr. McMurry for the award. Mrs. Nicholson thanked the Police Jury for having a Parish Administrator of Mr. McMurry’s caliber. She stated that her dealings with him and his staff had been very professional and helpful to the Parish Health Unit. Mrs. Nicholson stated that she was honored to work in a parish where the public had approved a millage to help support public health and that she and all of the employees at the Health Unit benefitted from Mr. McMurry’s able administration.

Mrs. Nicholson stated that she and the staff would soon move into a beautiful building where they would begin service on May 19, 2003. She praised Mr. McMurry and his staff for providing for the needs of the Health Unit staff, and she pointed out that not all parishes had a Police Jury or an Administrator that were as resourceful and responsible as Calcasieu Parish.

Mr. McMurry stated that he wished there were 183,000 of these awards alluding to the Parish’s population, because he felt the award was an indicator of the generosity of the taxpayers and the wisdom of the Police Jury over the years to recognize the importance of public health. He further stated that there was no other parish that had close to the level of public health service as Calcasieu Parish, and he felt the Police Jury truly lived up to its motto of “service, vision and leadership” with regard to local public health.

Mr. McMurry stated that his staff deserved the award more than he did, and he thanked them for all they did. He also thanked the Police Jury for allowing him the honor and privilege of serving the citizens of Calcasieu Parish for the past 27 years. Mr. McMurry thanked Mrs. Nicholson, Dr. Foch, and the Louisiana Public Health Association for the award.

Mr. McMurry then introduced his wife, Ann, and his son, Charlie, who were both in attendance for the presentation of the award.

President Kleckley ruled that an item would be taken out of sequence on the agenda at this time, and motion was made by Mrs. Treme, seconded by Mr. Landry and carried unanimously that the following resolution be adopted:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Parish of Calcasieu has a duty to provide for the public safety of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, railroads operate within the geographic boundaries of Calcasieu Parish, over public and private highway rail crossings and on property accessible to persons of all ages and abilities; and

WHEREAS, railroad equipment is known to present significant danger to persons and property from collision, derailment, and possible release of hazardous materials; and

WHEREAS, the United States Government has issued a safety alert against vandalism and threats of terrorism against railroads.

NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, in regular session convened on the 17^th day of April, 2003, that it does hereby support Senate Bill 770, introduced by Senator Cleo Fields in the 2003 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, prohibiting the operation of a locomotive by remote control.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to members of the Louisiana Legislative and Congressional Delegations, respectfully requesting their support of the Police Jury’s position in this matter.

THUS DONE AND PASSED on the date above inscribed.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President Kleckley advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ03-013-03 which was a request by Five T’s Corporation to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multi-family development with recreational facilities, commercial development, and industrial expansion at Highway 14 and Corbina Road in Ward Three, Police Jury District 9. President Kleckley further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, and voted (10) for and (1) against to recommend that the request be granted with the following stipulations: (1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; (2) that all drives and parking must be hard surfaced (concrete); and (3) that all commercial development must comply with C-1 (Light Commercial) uses.

President Kleckley explained that on March 20, 2003, the Police Jury deferred action until the regular meeting on this date (April 17, 2003), to allow time for the residents of the area to meet with the developer and the Division of Planning and Development staff in order to answer questions with reference to the proposed development, and that a meeting was held on April 2, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. with residents of the Corbina Road area.

President Kleckley stated that the Division of Planning and Development staff recommended the following stipulations be added to the original recommendation: (1) that drainage plans shall be submitted and approved by Gravity Drainage District No. Four of Ward Three and the Parish Division of Engineering prior to development permit being issued by the Division of Planning and Development; (2) that sewage plans shall be submitted to the Department of Health and Hospitals prior to development permit being issued by the Division of Planning and Development; and (3) that a U.S. postal-approved, centralized mailbox must be provided and the location approved by the Division of Planning and Development.

President Kleckley advised that in accordance with the Parish ordinance, the Division of Planning and Development outlined the following reasons for recommending a Planned Unit Development (PUD): (1) the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding land use in the area; (2) the proposed development would serve future housing needs; and (3) the density of the proposed development was not excessive.

Mr. Vickers explained that the meeting on April 2^nd with the residents had involved an exchange of a great deal of information, as well as questions and answers, the result of which were the recommendations as outlined heretofore. He further explained that some of the recommendations would have normally been handled as part of the administrative processing of a rezoning change, but he felt the recommendations should be included in the ordinance rezoning the property, if approved by the Police Jury, so that everybody would know exactly what was being approved.

Mr. Collins asked if the water and drainage problems as referenced by the property owners at the Regular Meeting on March 20, 2003, had been taken care of. Mr. Vickers stated that the developer was required to do storm water retention and would have to drain his property at the rate it would have drained prior to the project. Mr. Vickers further stated that if the project was approved, the developer would have to submit specific engineering plans for water and drainage which would have to be approved by the parish staff before the necessary development permits were issued. Mr. Vickers pointed out that Mr. Cormier’s property was at an elevation of 20 feet and that further down Corbina Road, the elevation decreased to 15 to 13 feet. He explained that it did not mean Mr. Cormier could flood property located downstream from his but that his property was at a higher elevation. Mr. Vickers stated that the amount of acreage and number of units involved in the proposed development was not an extremely high density, and he felt Mr. Cormier knew what was being expected of him in that he could not make the drainage problem any worse than it already was.

In answer to a question by Mr. Moon, Mr. Vickers stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Cormier had three water wells on his collective properties in this particular area. He further stated that the Police Jury did not have legal authority to regulate water wells.

Mr. Vickers stated that a public water system was definitely needed in the southern portion of Ward Three for drinking water and fire protection and pointed out that this area was one of the fastest-growing areas in the Parish, and it was going to continue to grow, but that it was one of the only areas that did not have a public water system. Mr. Vickers stated that the voters would have to approve a taxing mechanism in order to fund such a system. He pointed out that the Parish was accepting rights-of-way for the extension of East McNeese Street and Corbina Road at the meeting on this date.

Mr. Landry stated that he had received a number of phone calls about this rezoning request, some of which claimed that the plans had changed, and he felt there was some misunderstanding. He pointed out that a reference had been made to 80 two-bedroom units, yet the material he had reviewed from the staff had said 20 duplexes.

Mr. Vickers stated that as far as he knew, no plans had changed but that perhaps Mr. Cormier should address these questions.

Mrs. August advised that Mr. Cormier had been granted a request in 1994 to build 40 dwelling units on Highway 14 and also in 1994, he had been allowed to rezone property on Highway 14 to build townhouses. She asked what, if any, effect had these developments had on the area insofar as drainage, to which Mr. Vickers responded that to his knowledge, those developments had not been built. Mrs. August asked how would the Jury know if Mr. Cormier was going to do what he said he was going to do since he had not done what he had asked for permission to do in the past.

Mr. Vickers stated that perhaps these types of questions would be better directed to Mr. Cormier and that it might have been due to economic circumstances but that Mr. Cormier had taken measures to comply with the zoning ordinance to get necessary approvals.

Mr. Moon pointed out that in answer to Mr. Landry’s earlier question, he had spoken personally to Mr. Cormier and that his intent was to build 20 four-plexes, for a total of 80 units.

With reference to Mr. Vickers’ earlier statement that Mr. Cormier would not be allowed to make the drainage problem worse than it already was, Mrs. Griffin stated that if there were already so many problems in this area, and a public water system was needed, she did not see why the problems could not be fixed before something else was developed that would cause even more problems.

President Kleckley stated that there were several people in opposition who were in attendance who had requested to speak on this matter, as well as Mr. Cormier. He ruled that the proponents would be given seven minutes and the opponents would be given seven minutes to present their cases, with a two-minute rebuttal for each side.

Mr. Murphy Cormier, 2885 Highway 14 East, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury and advised that he had talked with the Drainage Board (Gravity Drainage District No. Four of Ward Three), and he was told that he would have to build a retention pond to slow the water down. He further advised that the development would include quality apartments that would rent for $1,000 - $1,200 per month and that it would not be Section 8 Housing. In response to Mrs. August’s earlier question, he advised that he had not built the townhouses in 1994 because of his expense in purchasing land. He further advised that he had purchased the Rutherford property because it was already zoned commercial and because he wanted to control the future of that property.

In answer to a question by Mr. Manuel, Mr. Cormier advised that his water well was 500 feet deep and that most residential wells were only required to be 300 feet deep. He further advised that he had purchased the well the Rutherfords were using to supply a trailer park in this vicinity.

Mr. Thomas Smith, 2926 Elda Street, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury in opposition to the rezoning request. He presented a petition (a copy of which is on file in the archives of the Police Jury) with 260 signatures against the rezoning request. Mr. Smith stated that when it rained longer than one hour, residents in his subdivision could not get because of the flooding. Mr. Smith stated that the drainage was not currently adequate, and he felt it would get worse with the development. He further stated that his home was worth $240,000, and he did not want to see an apartment complex in the area. Mr. Smith also stated that if an attempt was made to develop a similar complex on Nelson Road, everybody would be in an uproar.

Ms. Gwynda Lewis, 6432 Ridge Drive, Lake Charles, also appeared before the Police Jury in opposition to the rezoning request. She distributed a letter to each of the jurors (a copy of which is on file in the archives of the Police Jury) outlining her concerns with respect to a decrease in property values when multi-unit complexes were built in residentially zoned areas, drainage problems, the possibility of the facility ending up housing low-income, high risk tenants with an associated increase in burglary and crime, as well as insurance rates, in the area.

Mr. Kevin LeDoux, 3002 Lark Lane, Lake Charles, also appeared before the Police Jury in opposition to the rezoning request. He advised that there was a fire station in this area but that there was a problem with no water being available, and he would like this problem addressed prior to any expansion.

Mr. Donald D. Jackson, 6511 South Meadowlark Drive, Lake Charles, also appeared before the Police Jury in opposition to the rezoning request and stated that he felt he should be granted more time to make his presentation. He pointed out that there were 250 signatures on the petition in opposition to a change in zoning, as well as several letters.

Mr. Jackson referred to a U. S. Department of the Interior geological survey (a copy of which is on file in the archives of the Police Jury) prepared in cooperation with the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Cooperative Extension Service, and the Louisiana Rice Research Board, which stated that the Chicot aquifer system was the principal source of fresh ground water in southwest Louisiana. Mr. Jackson pointed out that the jurors had already heard concerns regarding water resources if the proposed development took place because of water needs for farming, domestic uses, and future demands on the aquifer.

Mr. Jackson also distributed for the record photographs (on file in the archives of the Police Jury) which he felt spoke for themselves insofar as flooding in the area. He stated that the residents believed that the proposed development would only add to and compound the problems they currently faced. His allotted time having expired, Mr. Jackson presented for the record a copy of a report entitled “200-Foot Chicot Stabilization System Southern Augmentation Well Installation Report” prepared for PPG Industries, Inc. by IT Corporation in July of 2000 (a copy of which is on file in the archives of the Police Jury).

Mr. Andrepont asked how much of the flooding problems in this area were attributable to the drainage board, to which Mr. Vickers responded that he felt the flooding was attributable to the record amount of rainfall the Parish had received in the last year and that it was one of the wettest years on record. Mr. Vickers also stated that there were some obstructions that needed to be taken care of, and he knew that the drainage board was doing some clearing downstream of the proposed development in the area of Black Bayou, pointing out that it took a long time to get permits from the Corps of Engineers and work out environmental considerations before any actual clearing could be done.

Mr. Vickers further stated that he had met with Mr. Mike Wittler, Superintendent of this drainage district, to discuss some of the problems that needed to be addressed, one of which was the replacement of a box culvert.

Mr. Andrepont asked if the area was just low in general, and Mr. Vickers stated that Mr. Cormier’s property started at an elevation of about 20 feet but that the area within the subdivision where most of the residents lived who were opposed to the project was anywhere from 15 feet down to 13 feet. Mr. Vickers explained that anytime a subdivision was built in a low-lying area that was previously used as farmland, drainage would be a problem because with houses and concrete, the land could not absorb as much water. He also pointed out that this was the same area that a few years back, had experienced an obstruction across a drainage pipe owned and replaced by the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District.

Mr. Derbonne stated that the flooding in this particular area was terrible, pointing out that one resident’s house in Addison Loop Subdivision had flooded six times. He asked Mr. Jackson to address the traffic issue associated with the rezoning request.

Mr. Jackson stated that traffic was already hectic, particularly from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., and an influx of 80 units and associated vehicles would add to the existing traffic congestion. Mr. Jackson advised that buses and trucks currently had trouble turning left off of Highway 14 onto Corbina Road, and he spoke of the residents’ concerns about safety, pointing out that their other concerns were traffic, flooding, water resource capabilities, and future growth.

Mr. Derbonne jokingly stated that he had taught Mr. Jackson in school and if you asked him what time it was, he would tell you how to make a watch.

Mr. Breaux stated that for eleven years, he had been fighting the drainage problems behind Mrs. Brenda Cole’s house (6311 South Meadow Lark Drive), and he felt the key issue was the Drainage Board.

Mrs. Griffin stated that she had not conferred with any of her colleagues on the Jury about this issue but after hearing Mr. Derbonne’s comments, she was so glad that he shared the different concerns. She further stated that for the record, in reference to Mr. Cormier, her opposition was not personal but was strictly on the basis that the property owners did not want the development and because of the many problems they were having. Mrs. Griffin concluded by saying that she could not imagine anyone supporting the request to rezone because of the problems the citizens in this area were facing.

Mr. Landry pointed out that he knew for a fact that some of the people whose names were on the petition in opposition to the rezoning were told that the development would be low-rent housing.

Mr. Derbonne advised that one of the main problems was the big drainage lateral in this vicinity, but the biggest problem was that Black Bayou needed dredging which was the Corps of Engineers’ responsibility. Mr. Derbonne pointed out that sometimes the Drainage Board was given a “hard time” but that all of the bayous in the Parish needed dredging. He jokingly remarked that the Corps got its orders “direct from God”.

With reference to Mr. Landry’s earlier comment, Mrs. August stated that she had received many telephones calls, faxes, and letters regarding this issue and not one person had told her at any time that they were worried about low-rent housing. She further stated that the concerns expressed to her were related to flooding, drainage, excessive traffic, etc. Mrs. August asked why would anyone want to compound an existing problem with something that could make it worse and that could compound the citizens’ suffering. Mrs. August further stated that nobody told her about depreciation of property values or the possibility of low-rent housing. She concluded her remarks by saying that she would have to vote with the residents.

In answer to Mrs. August, Mr. Landry referred to a letter that had been introduced earlier into the record from Mrs. Gwynda L. Lewis which listed some of her concerns, the third one being “a disproportionate (number) of these facilities end up with low-income, high-risk tenants”. Mrs. August responded by saying that Mr. Landry had just received that letter and that she had not even read hers yet.

President Kleckley ruled that at this time, each side would be given two minutes for rebuttal and then a vote on the matter would be taken by the Police Jury.

Mr. Cormier stated that with reference to the letter from the Drainage Board, he had met with two engineers who drew up specifications for a retention pond to hold the water on the property, and he assured the Jury that he would meet the required size for the retention pond.

Mr. Jackson began his rebuttal by stating that it was prudent to discuss the whole scheme and complexity of this matter and that a housing project could start as a privately-owned complex and could be sold and end up low-rent housing. He stated that he and his neighbors had discussed this possibility and were concerned they could end up with that, because they felt there was no guarantee that Mr. Cormier would not sell the apartments to somebody who would rent them as Section 8 Housing. Mr. Jackson stated that this was not their primary concern and that the photographs distributed earlier should speak for themselves.

Also appearing before the Police Jury in rebuttal was Mr. Thomas Smith who stated that he would have liked for the members of the Jury to have come out to his neighborhood during the last four years and seen some of the flooding problems they had experienced and that if any of them had built a $200,000+ home which flooded, they would know what he was talking about. Mr. Smith stated that the existing drainage was not adequate and that the proposed development was not good for their community.

Motion was made by Dr. Mackey and seconded by Mr. Clement that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld with respect to Zoning Request RZ03-013-03 and that the request be granted with the stipulations outlined by said Board on March 18, 2003, and with the additional stipulations recommended by the Division of Planning and Development following a meeting held on April 2, 2003, with residents of the Corbina Road area and Mr. Cormier.

A roll call vote was then taken on the motion on the floor, and the result thereon was as follows:

YEAS:Mr. Andrepont, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Clement, Mr. Danahay, Mr. Landry, Dr. Mackey, Mr. Moon, and Mrs. Treme

NAYS:Mrs. August, Mr. Collins, Mr. Derbonne, Mrs. Griffin, and Mr. Manuel

ABSENT: Mr. McMillin

NOT VOTING:President Kleckley

The vote being eight (8) for and five (5) against the motion, President Kleckley declared the motion as having carried; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted as a result thereof:

ORDINANCE NO. 4533

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Five T’s Corporation to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multi- family development with recreational facilities, commercial development, and industrial expansion, on the property described as: Plat of survey of two tracts of land in the SE/4 of SE/4 of S27, T10S, R8W, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, described as: Tract “A”: Com at the NW cor of the SE/4 of SE/4 of S27, T10S, R8W; thence run S 0 degs 02’ 14” E along the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance of 30’ to the S row line of LA. Hwy. 14; thence run N89 degs 28’ 15” E along said row line a distance of 208.70’ to the pob; thence continue N 89 degs 28’ 15” E along said row line, a distance of 1091.77’ to the W row line of Corbina Road, said row line being 30’ W of the E line of said SE/4 of SE/4; thence run S 0 degs 00’ 00” E along said row line, a distance of 664.63’; thence run S89 degs 50’ 38” W, a distance of 208.70’; thence run S 0 degs 00’ 00” E, a distance of 208.70’; thence run S89 degs 50’ 38” W, a distance of 101.30’; thence run S25 degs 36’ 39” W, a distance of 80.97’; thence run S 0 degs 00’ 00” E, a distance of 345.78’ to the S line of said SE/4 of SE/4; thence run S 89 degs 37’ 20” W along said S line, a distance of 554.61’; thence run N 0 degs 02’ 14” W parallel to the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance of 746.83’ to the center of a large drain ditch; thence run N 54 degs 24’ 00” W along center of said ditch, a distance of 235.38’; thence run N 0 degs 02’ 14” W parallel to the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance of 402.70’ to the pob. Contains 24.43 acres. Tract “B”: Com at the SW cor of the SE/4 of SE/4 of S27, T10S, R8W; thence run N 0 degs 02’ 14” W along the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance of 1035.97’ to the center line of a large drain ditch; thence run S 54 degs 24’ 00” E along the center of said ditch, a distance of 492.17’; thence run S 0 degs 02’ 14” E parallel to the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance 746.83’ to the S line of said SE/4 of SE/4; thence run N 89 degs 37’ 20” W along said S line, a distance of 400’ to the poc. Contains 8.19 acres.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in regular session on the 17^th day of April, 2003, that Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, and the Comprehensive Zoning Map for Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, be and they are hereby amended insofar as said ordinance and map pertain to the following described property in Ward Three of this parish, in accordance with reasons recommended by the Division of Planning and Development as follows: 1) that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land use in the area; 2) that the proposed development will serve future housing needs; and 3) that the density of the proposed development is not excessive; the property and zoning change being more particularly described as:

From R-1 (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multi- family development with recreational facilities, commercial development, and industrial expansion, with the following stipulations: 1) that development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; 2) that all drives and parking must be hard surfaced (concrete); 3) that all commercial development must comply with C-1 (Light Commercial) uses; 4) that drainage plans shall be submitted and approved by Gravity Drainage District No. Four of Ward Three and the Parish Division of Engineering prior to Development Permit being issued by the Division of Planning and Development; 5) that sewage plans shall be submitted to the Department of Health and Hospitals prior to Development Permit being issued by the Division of Planning and Development; and 6) that a U.S. postal approved, centralized mailbox must be provided and the location approved by the Division of Planning and Development; on the property described as: Plat of survey of two tracts of land in the SE/4 of SE/4 of S27, T10S, R8W, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, described as: Tract “A”: Com at the NW cor of the SE/4 of SE/4 of S27, T10S, R8W; thence run S 0 degs 02’ 14” E along the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance of 30’ to the S row line of LA. Hwy. 14; thence run N89 degs 28’ 15” E along said row line a distance of 208.70’ to the pob; thence continue N 89 degs 28’ 15” E along said row line, a distance of 1091.77’ to the W row line of Corbina Road, said row line being 30’ W of the E line of said SE/4 of SE/4; thence run S 0 degs 00’ 00” E along said row line, a distance of 664.63’; thence run S89 degs 50’ 38” W, a distance of 208.70’; thence run S 0 degs 00’ 00” E, a distance of 208.70’; thence run S89 degs 50’ 38” W, a distance of 101.30’; thence run S25 degs 36’ 39” W, a distance of 80.97’; thence run S 0 degs 00’ 00” E, a distance of 345.78’ to the S line of said SE/4 of SE/4; thence run S 89 degs 37’ 20” W along said S line, a distance of 554.61’; thence run N 0 degs 02’ 14” W parallel to the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance of 746.83’ to the center of a large drain ditch; thence run N 54 degs 24’ 00” W along center of said ditch, a distance of 235.38’; thence run N 0 degs 02’ 14” W parallel to the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance of 402.70’ to the pob. Contains 24.43 acres. Tract “B”: Com at the SW cor of the SE/4 of SE/4 of S27, T10S, R8W; thence run N 0 degs 02’ 14” W along the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance of 1035.97’ to the center line of a large drain ditch; thence run S 54 degs 24’ 00” E along the center of said ditch, a distance of 492.17’; thence run S 0 degs 02’ 14” E parallel to the W line of said SE/4 of SE/4, a distance 746.83’ to the S line of said SE/4 of SE/4; thence run N 89 degs 37’ 20” W along said S line, a distance of 400’ to the poc. Contains 8.19 acres.

Zoning Case RZ03-013-03

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the rezoning of the above described property is effective this date, classified in accordance with a new zoning District Map (adding to the existing District Map) which is attached to this ordinance to be placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of Court showing the classification of the new area of the above described property.

THUS DONE AND PASSED BY THE CALCASIEU PARISH POLICE JURY on the date above inscribed.

/s/ Chuck Kleckley, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President Kleckley advised that action was needed on RA04-002-03 which was a request for road abandonment of Pearson Loop in Ward Four, Police Jury District 12. He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, and voted unanimously to recommend that the request be granted.

Upon motion made by Mr. Clement, which was duly seconded by Mrs. Griffin and carried unanimously, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board was upheld with reference to RA04-002-03, and the road abandonment was approved; whereupon, the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in regular session on the 17^th day of April, 2003, that it does hereby abandon the road right-of-way for Pearson Loop in Ward Four of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, as recommended by the Calcasieu Parish Planning and Zoning Board, on the property described as: Beg at the E right of way line of LA State Hwy. Number 27 and the N line of the NE/4 of the SW/4 of S11, T11S, R10W, in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, thence E a distance of 750.0 feet more or less, thence S 15 degs 15’ E a distance of 900 feet, more or less, thence S a distance of 247 feet, more or less to the North edge of pavement.

RA04-002-03

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above public road right-of-way set forth above is hereby declared officially abandoned with one-half of said abandoned road right-of-way reverting to the abutting property owners as prescribed by law.

THUS PASSED AND ADOPTED on the date above inscribed.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President Kleckley advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ01-016-03 which was a request by YT, Ltd. to rezone from R-MHP (Manufactured Home Park) to C-3 (Central Business Commercial) to allow mini-storage and climate control storage buildings on Sam Houston Jones Parkway in Ward One, Police Jury District 1. He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, and voted unanimously to recommend that the request be granted with the following stipulations: (1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; (2) that all drives and parking be hard surfaced (concrete or asphalt); (3) that a six-foot wooden fence be installed on the north and west property lines upon completion of the buildings; and (4) that drainage plans be approved by the Ward One Drainage District.

It was moved by Mr. Manuel, seconded by Mrs. August and carried unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to Zoning Case RZ01-016-03 and to grant the request to rezone with the stipulations as outlined by said board; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4534

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by YT LTD to rezone from R-MHP (Manufactured Home Park) to C-3 (Central Business Commercial) to allow mini storage and climate control storage buildings on the property described as: North 200' of the following: Beg at the SW cor of SE/4 SE/4 of S1 T9S R9W, E 240’, N 215’, E 210’, N 285’ southwesterly 300’, S 71’, W 115’, S 379’ poc.

From R-MHP (Manufactured Home Park) to C-3 (Central Business Commercial) to allow mini storage and climate control storage buildings with the following stipulations: 1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; 2) that all drives and parking must be hard surfaced (concrete or asphalt); 3) that a 6' wooden fence be installed on North and West property lines upon completion of buildings; and 4) drainage plans must be approved by Ward One Drainage District; on the property described as: North 200' of the following: Beg at the SW cor of SE/4 SE/4 of S1 T9S R9W, E 240’, N 215’, E 210’, N 285’ southwesterly 300’, S 71’, W 115’, S 379’ poc.

Zoning Case RZ01-016-03

THUS DONE AND PASSED BY THE CALCASIEU PARISH POLICE JURY on the date above inscribed.

/s/ Chuck Kleckley, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President Kleckley advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ08-017-03 which was a request by Danis Begnaud to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-M (Multi-Family Residential) to allow multi-family residential development (eight duplexes) on Ira Breaux Road in Ward Eight, Police Jury District 2. He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, and voted nine (for) and one (against) to recommend that the request be granted with the following stipulations: (1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; (2) that all drives and parking areas be hard surfaced (concrete or asphalt); (3) that a centralized, postal-approved mailbox be provided; and (4) that the development be approved by the Calcasieu Parish Health Unit, the Ward Eight Water District, the Ward Eight Gravity Drainage District, and the Calcasieu Parish Engineering Department. President Kleckley further advised that the staff had recommended that this request be denied.

Motion was made by Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Mr. Danahay and carried unanimously that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld with respect to Zoning Case RZ08-017-03 and that the request to rezone be granted with the stipulations outlined by said board; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4535

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Danis Begnaud to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-M (Multi-Family Residential) to allow multi family residential development (8 duplexes) on the property described as: Beg at the SE cor of the E/2 of the NE/4 of S18, T9S, R7W, thence W 360 feet; thence N 260 feet; thence E 360 feet; thence S 260 feet to the poc subject to road right of way.

From R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-M (Multi-Family Residential) to allow multi family residential development (8 duplexes) with the following stipulations: 1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; 2) that all drives and parking must be hard surfaced (concrete or asphalt); 3) that a centralized postal approved mailbox must be provided; and 4) that the development must be approved by Calcasieu Parish Health Unit, Ward Eight Water District, Ward Eight Gravity Drainage and the Calcasieu Parish Engineering Department; on the property described as: Beg at the SE cor of the E/2 of the NE/4 of S18, T9S, R7W, thence W 360 feet; thence N 260 feet; thence E 360 feet; thence S 260 feet to the poc subject to road right of way.

Zoning Case RZ08-017-03

THUS DONE AND PASSED BY THE CALCASIEU PARISH POLICE JURY on the date above inscribed.

/s/ Chuck Kleckley, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President Kleckley advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ03-018-03 which was a request by B.H. Timber, Inc. to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) and C-2 (General Commercial) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) to allow a residential subdivision on Gulf Highway in Ward Three, Police Jury District 9. He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, and voted unanimously to recommend that the request be granted subject to an avigation easement provided to the Lake Charles Regional Airport.

Upon motion made by Mr. Derbonne, which was duly seconded by Mrs. Griffin and carried unanimously, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board was upheld with respect to Zoning Case RZ03-018–03, and the request to rezone was approved with the stipulations outlined by said board; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4536

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by B. H. Timber, Inc. to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) and C-2 (General Commercial) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) to allow a residential subdivision on the property described as: Com at a point N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, a distance of 816.9 feet from the SW cor of the S/2 of the SW/4 of S5, T11S, R8W, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; thence N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, along the W line of said S5, a distance of 120.0 feet; thence S 89 degs 55’ 43” E, parallel to the S line of said S5, a distance of 387.0 feet; thence N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, a distance of 391.48 feet to the N line of said S/2 of SW/4; thence S 89 degs 54’ 01” E, along said N line, a distance of 2288.47 feet to the NE cor of said S/2 of SW/4; thence S 0 degs 24’ 51” W, along the E line of said S/2 of SW/4, a distance of 326.26 feet to a point on the S side of Hippolyte Coulee; thence S 64 degs 13’ 39” W, a distance of 202.95 feet; thence S 64 degs 12’ 53” W, a distance of 285.31 feet; thence S 63 degs 58’ 50” W, a distance of 156.34 feet; Thence S 64 degs 01’ 29” W, a distance of 217.21 feet; thence S 63 degs 55’ 09” W, a distance of 284.89 feet; thence S 55 degs 09’ 49” W, a distance of 216.70 feet; thence S 46 degs 58’ 08” W a distance of 174.50 feet; thence S 49 degs 28’ 34” W, a distance of 345.92 feet to the N right-of-way line of Tank Farm Road; thence N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, parallel to the W line of said S5, a distance of 421.90 feet; thence N 89 degs 55’ 43” W, parallel to the S line of said S5, a distance of 697.50 feet; thence N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, a distance of 365.0 feet; thence N 89 degs 55’ 43” W, a distance of 387.0 feet to the poc, containing 42.366 acres, more or less.

From A-1 (Agricultural) and C-2 (General Commercial) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) to allow a residential subdivision with the stipulation that the request be granted subject to avigation easement provided to the Lake Charles Regional Airport; on the property described as: Com at a point N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, a distance of 816.9 feet from the SW cor of the S/2 of the SW/4 of S5, T11S, R8W, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; thence N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, along the W line of said S5, a distance of 120.0 feet; thence S 89 degs 55’ 43” E, parallel to the S line of said S5, a distance of 387.0 feet; thence N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, a distance of 391.48 feet to the N line of said S/2 of SW/4; thence S 89 degs 54’ 01” E, along said N line, a distance of 2288.47 feet to the NE cor of said S/2 of SW/4; thence S 0 degs 24’ 51” W, along the E line of said S/2 of SW/4, a distance of 326.26 feet to a point on the S side of Hippolyte Coulee; thence S 64 degs 13’ 39” W, a distance of 202.95 feet; thence S 64 degs 12’ 53” W, a distance of 285.31 feet; thence S 63 degs 58’ 50” W, a distance of 156.34 feet; Thence S 64 degs 01’ 29” W, a distance of 217.21 feet; thence S 63 degs 55’ 09” W, a distance of 284.89 feet; thence S 55 degs 09’ 49” W, a distance of 216.70 feet; thence S 46 degs 58’ 08” W a distance of 174.50 feet; thence S 49 degs 28’ 34” W, a distance of 345.92 feet to the N right-of-way line of Tank Farm Road; thence N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, parallel to the W line of said S5, a distance of 421.90 feet; thence N 89 degs 55’ 43” W, parallel to the S line of said S5, a distance of 697.50 feet; thence N 0 degs 29’ 18” E, a distance of 365.0 feet; thence N 89 degs 55’ 43” W, a distance of 387.0 feet to the poc, containing 42.366 acres, more or less.

Zoning Case RZ03-018-03

THUS DONE AND PASSED BY THE CALCASIEU PARISH POLICE JURY on the date above inscribed.

/s/ Chuck Kleckley, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President Kleckley advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ08-015-03 which was a request by Raymond and Barbara Brown to rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to A-1 (Agricultural) to allow residential development (two manufactured homes) on Highway 397 in Ward Eight, Police Jury District 10. He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, and voted unanimously to recommend that the request be granted with the following stipulations: (1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; and (2) that the manufactured home be skirted prior to utilities being connected.

It was moved by Mrs. August, seconded by Dr. Mackey and carried unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to Zoning Case RZ08-015-03 and to grant the request to rezone with the stipulations outlined by said Board; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4537

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Raymond and Barbara Brown to rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to A-1 (Agricultural) to allow residential development (two manufactured homes) on the property described as: Tract 2: Com at a point 2227.0 feet S and 40.0 feet E of the NW cor of S31, T9S, R7W, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; thence S 89 degs 42’ 49” E, a distance of 305.01 feet to the center line of an existing drainage ditch; thence S 28 degs 02’ 49” E, along said center line, a distance of 10.89 feet; thence S 25 degs 41’ 46” E, continuing along said center line, a distance of 147.52 feet; thence S 39 degs 24’ 53” E, continuing along said center line, a distance of 107.62 feet; thence N 89 degs 42’ 49” W, a distance of 443.55 feet to the E right of way line of Louisiana State Highway 397; thence N 00 degs 17’ 11” E, along said E right of way line, a distance of 225.0 feet to the poc.

From I-1 (Light Industrial) to A-1 (Agricultural) to allow residential development (two manufactured homes) with the following stipulations: 1) that development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; and 2) that the manufactured home must be skirted prior to utilities being connected; on the property described as: Tract 2: Com at a point 2227.0 feet S and 40.0 feet E of the NW cor of S31, T9S, R7W, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; thence S 89 degs 42’ 49” E, a distance of 305.01 feet to the center line of an existing drainage ditch; thence S 28 degs 02’ 49” E, along said center line, a distance of 10.89 feet; thence S 25 degs 41’ 46” E, continuing along said center line, a distance of 147.52 feet; thence S 39 degs 24’ 53” E, continuing along said center line, a distance of 107.62 feet; thence N 89 degs 42’ 49” W, a distance of 443.55 feet to the E right of way line of Louisiana State Highway 397; thence N 00 degs 17’ 11” E, along said E right of way line, a distance of 225.0 feet to the poc.

Zoning Case RZ08-015-03

THUS DONE AND PASSED BY THE CALCASIEU PARISH POLICE JURY on the date above inscribed.

/s/ Chuck Kleckley, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President Kleckley advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ03-014-03 which was a request by Jeanis Air Conditioning to rezone from C-2 (General Commercial) to R-2 (Mixed Residential) and R-M (Multi-Family Residential) to allow residential development (six duplexes and one manufactured home) on Manuel Road in Ward Three, Police Jury District 9. He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, and voted six (against) and four (for) to recommend that the request be denied. He further advised that the staff had recommended that the request be granted with the following stipulations: (1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; (2) that all drives and parking for the duplexes be hard surfaced (concrete or asphalt); (3) that a centralized, postal-approved mailbox be provided; and (4) that all buildings and vehicles be removed from the premises within one year of zoning approval.

Motion was made by Mrs. August and seconded by Mr. Moon to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board with the stipulations outlined by said Board. Mrs. Treme pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Board had voted against the request to rezone and, therefore, no stipulations were outlined by the Board. She also pointed out that a vote in favor of the motion on the floor would be a vote against the rezoning.

Dr. Mackey stated that he thought the intent of the motion was to vote for the staff’s recommendation, and Mrs. August stated she thought that was what she had meant.

Mr. Vickers advised that this property was located on the north side of Manuel Road and encompassed 3.2 acres. He further advised that the petitioner planned to sell the east 461 feet (2.2 acres) for development of the duplexes and that he wanted to rezone the remaining one acre as R-2 to allow a manufactured home for his son to remain on the property and to allow for future single-family development. Mr. Vickers pointed out that currently on the property were three manufactured homes, two storage buildings, and several trucks that were used for Mr. Jeanis’s former air conditioning business but that Mr. Jeanis intended to remove all buildings and vehicles within eight months, except for the manufactured home his son resided in located on the western portion of the property.

Mr. Vickers advised that it was somewhat unusual for someone to be asking for property to be down-zoned but that it was necessary in order to carry out the petitioner’s plans. He further advised that if Mr. Jeanis sold the property as commercial property, there was no telling what type of business would be put in. Mr. Vickers stated that he was sure the residents did not want any more traffic on the road, but the staff felt it would be worse to leave the zoning as commercial, not knowing what the future would bring.

Mr. Derbonne pointed out that under the commercial zoning, someone could theoretically put in a night club, to which Mr. Vickers stated that the zoning would permit that activity. Mr. Derbonne stated that Manuel Road was a mixture in that there was a commercial building further down the road from the property under discussion. He questioned why the residents were in opposition to the down-zoning, and Mr. Vickers stated that traffic concerns had been an issue at the public hearing held by the Planning and Zoning Board, as well as property values and the normal things associated with a rezoning case.

Mr. Andrepont asked Mrs. August if the intent of her motion was to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board (which was to deny the request to rezone), and Mrs. August stated that it was.

Mr. Tim Castle, 438 Scarlett Street, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury to speak in favor of the project and asked the Police Jury not to accept the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated that the construction of the duplexes would enhance property values in this area and that traffic would be an issue regardless of where the duplexes were built. Mr. Castle asked that the Police Jury vote to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board.

Mr. Rayford Jeanis, the petitioner, 1425 W. Autumnwood Lane, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that he had reached the age of retirement and while he had had intentions of developing a commercial activity on this property when he had purchased it, he had gotten busy with his air conditioning business and had decided not to develop a commercial business. Mr. Jeanis stated that with the closing of his business, he had wanted to put something in that would be compatible with the other side of the road.

Mr. Jeanis advised that he did not think there would be a change in the amount of traffic because his business had traffic coming to it daily. Mr. Jeanis closed by saying he felt the duplexes would upgrade the property values.

Mr. Jim Flowers, 910 Manuel Road, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that Mr. Derbonne was his representative on the Police Jury. He further stated that he resented what was being said at this meeting and the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, and that while he did not live in a mansion, it upset him when people downgraded his house. He also stated that his main concern was the safety of the people who lived on Manuel Road – many of whom he said were retired – and his concern related to an increase in traffic he felt would be a result of the construction of the duplexes. Mr. Flowers stated that flooding was a problem on Manuel Road and that the water drained toward the site of the proposed duplexes.

Mr. Flowers also expressed his concern about the future of the water wells on Manuel Road. He presented a petition for the record containing signatures of persons opposed to the rezoning and pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Board had denied the request at its meeting. Mr. Flowers stated that many of the people on Manuel Road lived in trailer houses, but he was not ashamed of anyone on the road.

Mr. Derbonne asked what the other business was that was located on Manuel Road, to which Mr. Flowers stated that it was Arabie Roofing Company and that the employees of said company were very cautious about watching out for the safety of children on bicycles, the elderly who walked for exercise, etc.

Mr. Castle again appeared before the Police Jury and stated that he was sincerely sympathetic to the residents’ plight but pointed out that with the current zoning of commercial, anything could be developed on the property, and the residents would have no opportunity to stand before the Police Jury and request a change. Mr. Castle also stated that with such a development, the amount of traffic could go up exponentially and nothing could be done at that point. He pointed out that the families who would be living in the new duplexes would be just as happy living there as the current residents of Manuel Road and that while the developer regretted any increase in traffic, that was a problem associated with any development.

Mrs. August asked if there was any particular reason for the Planning and Zoning Board’s split vote of six (against) and four (for) the request to rezone. Mr. Vickers explained that sometimes reasonable people had reasonable differences and while he was somewhat surprised at the vote, he respected it. He stated that traffic might have been an issue with some of the Board members, but with the changes, he felt that would have negated itself, and he did not think the construction of the duplexes would have had a great deal of impact on the surrounding property. Mr. Vickers stated that the staff’s experience with the developer who wanted to build the duplexes had been good in other areas where he had developed.

Mr. Castle distributed photographs of what the duplexes would look like.

In answer to a question by Mr. Derbonne, Mr. Jeanis stated that he was closing his air conditioning business and would remove the trailers, take the buildings down, and sell the property for residential development. Mr. Jeanis explained that he would like one acre of the property to be zoned to accommodate his son’s mobile home so it could remain there.

Mr. Flowers again appeared before the Police Jury and apologized for his earlier behavior. He stated that Mr. Jeanis was having financial problems and was not just quitting the business. Mr. Flowers also stated that the developer would not purchase the land unless Mr. Jeanis could get it rezoned, and he did not want the residents to be “the scapegoat for whomever”. Mr. Flowers stated that he knew the jurors probably all lived in $200 - $300,000 homes but that it was nice to live in a community like his where the elderly and the children could go outside and be safe and not have to worry about traffic. Mr. Flowers reiterated his concerns regarding safety, traffic, and drainage relative to the proposed development.

Following a clarification of the motion on the floor, which was to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to Zoning Case RZ03-014-03 and to deny the request to rezone, a roll call vote was taken thereon with the following result:

YEAS:Mr. Andrepont, Mrs. August, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Clement, Mr. Collins, Mr. Danahay, Mr. Derbonne, Mrs. Griffin, Dr. Mackey, Mr. Moon and Mrs. Treme

NAYS:Mr. Landry and Mr. Manuel

ABSENT:Mr. McMillin

NOT VOTING:President Kleckley

The vote being eleven (for) and two (against) the motion, President Kleckley declared the motion as having carried and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board was upheld with respect to Zoning Case RZ03-014-03, and the request to rezone was denied.

President Kleckley advised that the next item of business was consideration of adopting a resolution approving a New Public Highway Crossing Agreement between the Police Jury and Union Pacific Railroad Company with reference to the reconstruction, widening, and grant of servitude for the existing Louisiana Highway 108 at-grade public road crossing, and further, authorizing the President of the Police Jury, or his designee, when appropriate, to execute all documents related thereto.

Mr. Andrepont stated that this issue had been ongoing for at least ten to twelve years and that when it came to economic development, he did not think there had been anyone more proactive than he had been with regard to this issue. Mr. Andrepont pointed out that when he was first elected as a police juror, he lobbied for funds to be placed in the budget to start the preliminary work on the extension of Highway 108 but at that time, he had not been aware that the railroad was mandating that the Parish abandon a certain number of railroad crossings. Mr. Andrepont further pointed out that both crossings proposed to be abandoned – Racca and Stegall – were in his district.

Mr. Andrepont advised that approximately seven to eight families lived between Stegall Road and Kim Street and that these two roads were their only means of ingress and egress, and further, there was an ethylene facility between these two roads. He stated that while he was not opposed to the extension of Highway 108, he had a problem with the request to abandon Stegall Road in light of the fact that in the event of an explosion or leak at the ethylene facility, the families living in this vicinity would have no way to evacuate. Mr. Andrepont stated that while he was for progress and economic development, he could not see putting those people in harm’s way.

Mr. Andrepont stated that in the past few weeks, Mr. Danahay had approached the City of Sulphur and asked the City to close one of its crossings, but the request had been to no avail. He advised that there were at least eight, maybe nine, railroad crossings within the city limits of Sulphur, and he felt the City of Sulphur stood to gain economically from the extension of Highway 108.

Mr. Andrepont stated that he had asked for the jurors’ support in the past on issues he felt were detrimental to the Parish, i.e., a proposed injection well in Edgerly, the proposed Enron facility north of Sulphur, Union Pacific’s request to rezone for a storage-in-transit (SIT) yard, etc., and that he was asking again for support in this matter. He further stated that he realized time was of the essence but that he could not believe there was not another crossing in the Parish that could be closed instead of Stegall Road. Mr. Andrepont stated that he had already taken a lot of “heat” concerning the closing of the Racca Road crossing but that the Stegall Road closure was another matter altogether because of the people who lived in that area who would be put in harm’s way by the closure.

Mr. Daniel E. Burnett, 1807 West Burton Street, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and advised that he and his family lived between the Kim Street and Stegall Road crossings. He pointed out that in addition to the issue of the ethylene facility, the railroad tracks were often blocked at Kim Street and if there was a fire, their help would come from across the tracks on Highway 90. Mr. Burnett advised that he was a fireman, and he realized the need for emergency vehicles to come through that area. He stated that he was opposed to the closure of the Stegall Road crossing because of safety reasons for his family.

Mr. Marshall C. Cannon, 2308 West Burton Street, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and submitted a letter for the record (a copy of which is on file in the archives of the Police Jury) from Mr. Ken Lyons who could not be present at the meeting on this date. Mr. Cannon stated that his main concern was for the safety of his family and neighbors who lived west of the ethylene plant. He further stated that he had talked to U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu and Mr. Bill Shrewsberry with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. Mr. Cannon stated that Mr. Shrewsberry told him there were five crossings in Calcasieu Parish that needed to be closed but that Racca and Stegall Roads were not on that list and that Stegall Road was one of the safer crossings in the Parish even though it did not have guard arms. Mr. Cannon also stated that Mr. Ken Rouse with Union Pacific Railroad had said that the Stegall Road crossing should not be closed if it was an evacuation route.

Mr. Cannon further stated that he had talked with someone from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) who had told him that the federal mandate to reduce the number of crossings was an effort to save lives, not to endanger lives, and that if a crossing was an evacuation route, it should not be closed.

Mr. Cannon stated that he would appreciate the Police Jury’s support in not closing this crossing and while he was not opposed to extending Highway 108, he felt the Parish needed to look at having grade separations. He further stated that he knew money was tight but that the State had just given the New Orleans Saints football team $6.7 million to build a practice field while most of the citizens here could not afford a ticket to attend a game. Mr. Cannon closed by saying that he would not jeopardize the safety of any of the jurors’ families if he was in a position to vote on a matter such as this.

Mr. Burton Cannon, 2312 West Burton Street, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and stated he would like to see the Stegall Road crossing remain open, pointing out that the railroad had recently spent approximately $25,000 in improvements to the crossing and that the Parish had blacktopped the road a few years ago, all of which he felt would be a waste of taxpayers’ money to do away with the crossing.

Mr. Andrepont read aloud the following letter dated April 17, 2003, from Mr. Ken Lyons, 531 West Lincoln Street, Sulphur, a copy of which had been distributed earlier in the meeting by Mr. Cannon:

To:The Honorable Calcasieu Parish Police Jury

Re:Closure of Stegall Road railroad crossing

The subject crossing may be needed for emergency evacuation. Sasol has gas storage in the Sulphur Mines salt caverns and a pipeline compressor plant on West Burton. There has been H2S production in the old oil field and it may yet produce more in the future. There are numerous pipelines in the area that could leak. A railcar may derail to the east of this crossing. Any of these can become a deadly threat to people living or working on the west end of West Burton Street.

In addition to the residents, Sasol and PPG have large crews working in this area.

As I understand, this is to be a tradeoff so Union Pacific will let you have a crossing at La. 108. Isn’t that crossing supposed to be part of a main evacuation route? In my memory, the City of Sulphur did not trade anything nor close any crossings to get the North Claiborne Street crossing when Dennis Sumpter was mayor of Sulphur. It seems to me that your proposed La 108 evacuation route is imminent domain in and of itself. I could be wrong, but I will consult Mr. Sumpter about this to see if he thinks it is.

We have property in this area and many friends. I do hope you will give these facts your utmost consideration and act to protect the families living there and the people working there.

Mr. Danahay stated that it was unfortunate that any crossings had to be closed but that it had to be done for the greater good of the Parish. He further stated that the extension of Highway 108 had been a priority for Calcasieu Parish for the past twelve years, and the agreement on the agenda was a one-time opportunity to achieve this goal. Mr. Danahay explained that the extension of Highway 108 would provide a more efficient route to the industries and industry-related businesses at which many people in the north and northwestern portion of the Parish were employed. He further explained that the extension would bring many benefits to residents of Calcasieu Parish and would create many opportunities for future business and residential development. Mr. Danahay also stated that the project should move forward, and he hoped his colleagues would support him in adoption of the resolution.

Mrs. Griffin asked if the Prater Road crossing in Mossville was closed or open, to which Mr. Danahay stated that it was open and was used quite a bit but stayed blocked much of the time because there was a switching track there. Mr. Danahay further explained that the Highway 108 extension would give those residents an evacuation route to the west in case of an emergency.

Mrs. Ava Cannon, 2308 West Burton Street, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that the Prater Road crossing offered evacuation routes from that area both east and west but that if the Stegall Road crossing was closed, those residents would only have one evacuation route to the west. She pointed out that if there was a problem at the PPG or Sasol facilities, the residents of the Stegall Road/Kim Street area would have no evacuation route.

Mr. McMurry pointed out that there was no motion on the floor.

Mr. Clement stated that he would prefer that there was a separate motion made on the issue of whether to close Stegall Road and then another motion on extending Highway 108.

Mr. McMurry explained that the only reason this particular item was on the agenda was the Highway 108 crossing agreement with Union Pacific and that the agreement stated that either these two crossings (Racca and Stegall) would be permanently closed, or there would be no agreement to extend Highway 108. He further explained that the Police Jury needed to either authorize the President to execute the agreement or deny authority to do that.

Mr. Clement stated that he did not think the wording on the agenda represented what the jurors were being asked to do and asked if the Police Jury could seek revenues for grade separations.

Mr. McMurry advised that the Police Jury still needed to address the issue of the agreement and that the motion could read in any manner the Police Jury chose, i.e., a motion to not approve the execution of the agreement as submitted by Union Pacific and to authorize further study for alternate closings. Mr. McMurry also advised that Union Pacific was awaiting an answer on the agreement as it was submitted to the Police Jury and that it was clear in the agreement that the closing of these two crossings had to take place. Mr. McMurry stated that he would guess that if the Police Jury proposed closure of a different crossing, the railroad was looking for a net number of two closings in the Parish.

Mr. Smart stated that Union Pacific, in drafting the agreement, was reacting to the Police Jury’s previous actions to close the Stegall Road crossing and the Racca Road crossing in order to open a crossing on Highway 108. Mr. Smart pointed out that the Police Jury had already closed the Stegall Road crossing and if they wanted to rescind that previous action, that was their prerogative, but that the issue at this time was whether the Police Jury wanted to enter into the agreement with Union Pacific to open up the Highway 108 crossing, as per the stipulations.

Mr. Landry asked how willing Union Pacific might be to renegotiate this issue, considering it had been going on for several years and an agreement had finally been reached. Mr. Smart advised that he had been involved in negotiations relative to this matter on behalf of the Police Jury for eleven or twelve years and that he could not predict what Union Pacific might do.

Mr. Danahay stated that this was a one-time opportunity for the Police Jury to obtain a crossing for the Highway 108 extension. He stated that Union Pacific would not come to the table again – that the Police Jury had offered the closings of these two crossings, and the company had accepted them.

Mr. Clement suggested that the motion be amended to seek other ways to get the Highway 108 crossing, and Mr. McMurry again pointed out that there was no motion on the floor.

Mr. Andrepont stated that if the Police Jury voted to uphold the Highway 108 extension, it would sacrifice the Stegall and Racca Road crossings. He agreed with Mr. Clement that perhaps there should be two motions. He also stated that this issue was a double-edged sword.

Mr. McMurry stated that the agenda item was a reflection of the request from Union Pacific but that the motion did not have to be worded like the wording on the agenda, and he explained several different options for motions and the effect of such motions.

Mr. Smith advised that what the jurors had before them was a contract, and they could either vote to enter into it or not, but they could not vote at this meeting to change or amend the contract, because that would take the agreement of both parties and negotiations. Mr. Smith further advised that the terms of the contract stated that Union Pacific would give the Parish a crossing for the Highway 108 extension in exchange for the Parish’s closure of the Stegall Road and Racca Road crossings. He stated that if the Police Jury did not want to enter into the agreement, it could vote against entering into the contract and then direct the staff to look at alternatives, but it could not amend the contract on this date.

Mr. Marshall Cannon again appeared before the Police Jury and reiterated what he was told regarding Stegall Road not being on the list of five crossings in the Parish that were planned for closure and asked why the Police Jury could not select one of the five that were already being targeted for closure, instead of Stegall Road. He also stated that he felt they were being sacrificed for nothing.

Mr. Manuel stated that he thought the motion could be amended to exclude the Stegall Road closing and still support the extension of Highway 108.

Mr. Smith stated that the motion should determine the Police Jury’s decision as to whether or not to enter into the contract but that if the Police Jury was going to amend it as suggested by Mr. Manuel, it would be meaningless unless the other party (Union Pacific) agreed to the amendment and if they did that, the contract would have to be brought back before the Police Jury for a final vote. He further stated that if the Police Jury voted against entering into the agreement, the Highway 108 extension was off the table.

Motion was made by Mr. Danahay and seconded by Mrs. Griffin to adopt a resolution approving a New Public Highway Crossing Agreement between the Police Jury and Union Pacific Railroad Company with reference to the reconstruction, widening, and grant of servitude for the existing Louisiana 108 at-grade public road crossing, and further, authorizing the President of the Police Jury, or his designee, when appropriate, to execute all documents related thereto.

Mrs. Griffin called the question on the motion, and President Kleckley asked for a roll call vote thereon, the result of which was as follows:

YEAS:Mr. Danahay, Mr. Landry, Dr. Mackey, and Mr. Moon

NAYS:Mr. Andrepont, Mrs. August, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Clement, Mr. Collins, Mr. Derbonne, Mrs. Griffin, Mr. Manuel, and Mrs. Treme

ABSENT:Mr. McMillin

NOT VOTING:President Kleckley

The vote being four (for) and nine (against), President Kleckley declared the motion as having failed.

With reference to the foregoing action, Mrs. August stated that the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury had one of the most pro-active staffs she had ever seen but that every now and then, the jurors were faced with one of these “gut-wrenching” decisions. She asked if the Engineering Department could prepare a map showing how these dead-end, dangerous roads could be tied into a major thoroughfare and questioned why such a study had not already been done.

Mr. McMurry stated that those studies had been done and with respect to this particular issue, a couple of alternatives had been looked at, but they carried price tags of approximately half a million dollars. Also with regard to this issue, Mr. McMurry pointed out that the reason Union Pacific had sent the agreement was because the Police Jury had voted to close both t