April 21, 2005

Lake Charles, Louisiana

The Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, met in Regular Session at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 21, 2005, in the Police Jury Meeting Room of the Parish Government Building, 1015 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana, with The Honorable Hal McMillin, President, presiding, and the following members present:

Mesdames Mary Kaye Eason, Elizabeth Conway Griffin, and Sandra J. Treme; and Messrs. Francis Andrepont, Brent Clement, Calvin Collins, Mike Danahay, Kevin Guidry, Tony Guillory, Chris Landry, Charles S. Mackey, D.D.S., Don Manuel, Cornie Moon, and Tony Stelly

Absent: None

Also present were Mr. S. Mark McMurry, Parish Administrator; Mr. Bryan Beam, Assistant Administrator; Mrs. Coleen Clark, Executive Secretary; Mr. Richard Gremillion, Director of the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness; Mr. Claude Smart, Parish Engineer; Mr. Allen L. Smith, Jr. of the firm of Plauche, Smith and Nieset, General Counsel; Ms. Kathy P. Smith, Recording Secretary; and Mr. Jim Vickers, Director of Planning and Development.

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

President McMillin 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.

President McMillin advised that bids would be received and opened at this time, as advertised in accordance with law for action to be taken at 5:30 p.m., for Calcasieu Parish Project No. 2005-03 (Overlaying and Drainage Improvements of Various Roads in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana), and appropriate action would be taken thereon.

Mr. McMurry then proceeded to open the following bids:

Bessette Development Corporation $2,644,555.37

Prairie Contractors, Inc. $2,845,296.91

R. E. Heidt Construction Company, Inc. $2,797,968.83

Motion was made by Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Mrs. Griffin and carried unanimously that the bids as listed above be referred to the Parish Engineer for final tabulation, with further action thereon to be taken by the Police Jury at its Regular Meeting on May 5, 2005.

President McMillin advised that bids would be received and opened at this time, as advertised in accordance with law for action to be taken at 5:30 p.m., for an oil, gas, and mineral lease on certain tracts of land (1.7 acres, more or less) in Section 12, Township 11 South, Range 9 West, in Ward Three, and appropriate action would be taken thereon.

Mr. McMurry proceeded to open the bid of Kilrush Petroleum, Inc., the details of which are set forth in the following resolution which was adopted upon motion made by Dr. Mackey, seconded by Mr. Landry and carried unanimously:

RESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in regular session on the 21^st day of April, 2005, that it does hereby accept the bid of Kilrush Petroleum, Inc., for a mineral lease on the following described property, to-wit:

A certain tract of land belonging to the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, being more fully described as follows: All of the rights, title and interest in any highways, right-of-ways, roads, or other lands owned by and not presently under mineral lease from the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, situated in Section 12, Township 11 South, Range 9 West, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana and being located within the following described boundaries: Beginning at a point having Coordinates of X = 1,394,420.00 and Y = 532,572.00; thence East 1,350.00 feet to a point having Coordinates of X = 1,395,770.00 and Y = 532,572.00; thence South 2,666.00 feet to a point having Coordinates of X = 1,395,770.00 and Y = 529,906.00; thence West 1,350.00 feet to a point having Coordinates of X = 1,394,420.00 and Y = 529,906.00; thence North 2,666.00 feet to the point of beginning, containing approximately 1.7 acres, excluding beds and bottoms of all navigable waters, all as more particularly outlined on a plat on file in the Office of Mineral Resources, Department of Natural Resources. All bearings, distances and coordinates are based on Louisiana Coordinate System of 1927, (South Zone), where applicable.

for a three-year lease with a cash bonus of Four Hundred Sixty Seven and 50/100 Dollars ($467.50) and an annual rental of Four Hundred Sixty Seven and 50/100 Dollars ($467.50) and with the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury to receive one-fourth (1/4th) of all oil produced and saved one-fourth (1/4th) of all sulphur produced and saved, and one-fourth (1/4th) of all other liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon minerals produced and saved.

BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED that the President of the Police Jury is hereby authorized to execute the necessary lease contract to consummate this transaction.

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

President Hal McMillin introduced Ms. Becky Jacobs of U.S. Senator David Vitter’s office. Ms. Jacobs, 2390 North Park Lane, Lake Charles, then appeared before the Police Jury and stated that she was the Southwest Louisiana representative for Senator Vitter, whose local office was located at the corner of Prien Lake Road and Ryan Street in Lake Charles, and further, that she was looking forward to working with the Police Jury.

Upon motion made by Dr. Mackey, which was duly seconded by Mr. Guillory and carried unanimously, the following application for a liquor and beer permit was approved, and the issuance of the following special events permits were ratified:

WARD II

Gaynell Bourque dba

DOC’s

7202 Railroad Avenue

Bell City, LA 70630 Liquor & Beer — Pkg. $75.00

(Tony Stelly’s District)

TOTAL REMITTANCE: $75.00

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

SECOND ANNUAL CRAWFISH FESTIVAL

May 5, 2005

1336 Swisco Road, Sulphur, LA 70665

Martha Monceaux, Organizer

(Mike Danahay’s District)

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

2005 COWBOY FOOTBALL FESTIVAL

June 17 and 18, 2005

Burton Memorial Coliseum

7001 Gulf Highway, Lake Charles, LA 70607

J. Thomas Tate, Organizer

(Chris Landry’s District)

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

It was moved by Mr. Clement, seconded by Mr. Stelly and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Police Jury dated March 17, 2005.

President McMillin advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ01-012-05 which was a request by Joe Miller Road Partners, LLC, to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) to allow single family residential development on Joe Miller Road in Ward One (Police Jury District 1, Mr. Manuel, and Police Jury District 11, Mrs. Treme). President McMillin further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, and voted unanimously to recommend that the request be granted.

Motion was made by Mr. Manuel, seconded by Mr. Landry and carried unanimously that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld with respect to Zoning Case RZ01-012-05 and that the request to rezone be granted; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4905

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Joe Miller Road Partners, LLC to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) to allow single family residential development on the property described as: Less the S 400 feet of the E/2 of the SW/4 of S19, T8S, R8W, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, less and except 3.33 acres in the SE cor thereof, and being more particularly described as com at the SE cor of the SW/4 of S19, T8S, R8W; thence run N 89 degs 59’ 45” W along the S line of said Section 19, a distance of 361.50’ to the pob; thence run N 89 degs 59’ 45” W along said S line, a distance of 1023.24’ to the SW cor of the E/2 of said SW/4; thence run N 0 degs 15’ 09” W along the W line of said E/2 of SW/4, crossing a ½ inch pinch pipe at 33.40’, a distance of 2655.08’ to a 1” iron pipe marking the NW cor of said E/2 of SW/4; thence run N 89 degs 59’ 19”E along the N line of said SW/4, a distance of 1384.08’ to the NE cor of said SW/4 (said NE cor falls in Little Indian Bayou); thence run S 0 degs 16’ E along the E line of said SW/4, said line also being the W line of Southern Bell Estates No. 2, Crossing a ½” rod at 216.85’, a distance of 2253.96’ to an existing ½” rod; thence run N 89 degs 59’ 45” W, a distance of 361.50’ to an existing ½” rod; thence run S 0 degs 16’ E, crossing an existing ½” rod at 361.69’, a distance of 401.50’ to the pob. Contains 81.05 acres and is subject to a road right of way along the south side.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in regular session on the 21^st day of April, 2005, 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 property in Ward One of this parish:

From A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) to allow single family residential development on the property described as: Less the S 400 feet of the E/2 of the SW/4 of S19, T8S, R8W, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, less and except 3.33 acres in the SE cor thereof, and being more particularly described as com at the SE cor of the SW/4 of S19, T8S, R8W; thence run N 89 degs 59’ 45” W along the S line of said Section 19, a distance of 361.50’ to the pob; thence run N 89 degs 59’ 45” W along said S line, a distance of 1023.24’ to the SW cor of the E/2 of said SW/4; thence run N 0 degs 15’ 09” W along the W line of said E/2 of SW/4, crossing a ½ inch pinch pipe at 33.40’, a distance of 2655.08’ to a 1” iron pipe marking the NW cor of said E/2 of SW/4; thence run N 89 degs 59’ 19”E along the N line of said SW/4, a distance of 1384.08’ to the NE cor of said SW/4 (said NE cor falls in Little Indian Bayou); thence run S 0 degs 16’ E along the E line of said SW/4, said line also being the W line of Southern Bell Estates No. 2, Crossing a ½” rod at 216.85’, a distance of 2253.96’ to an existing ½” rod; thence run N 89 degs 59’ 45” W, a distance of 361.50’ to an existing ½” rod; thence run S 0 degs 16’ E, crossing an existing ½” rod at 361.69’, a distance of 401.50’ to the pob. Contains 81.05 acres and is subject to a road right of way along the south side.

Zoning Case RZ01-012-05

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/ Hal McMillin, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

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

President McMillin advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ04-014-05 which was a request by Citicorp Trust Bank FSB F/K/A to rezone from C-1 (Light Commercial) to A-1 (Agricultural) to allow residential development (house) at 7051 Choupique Road in Ward Four (Police Jury District 12, Mr. Clement). He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, and voted unanimously to recommend that the request be granted.

Upon motion made by Mr. Clement, which was duly seconded by Mr. Stelly and carried unanimously, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board was upheld with respect to Zoning Case RZ04-014-05, and the request to rezone was granted; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4906

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Citicorp Trust Bank FSB F/K/A to rezone from C-1 (Light Commercial) to A-1 (Agricultural) to allow residential development (house) on the property described as: Com SE cor E/2 SE Sec 36.10.11, th W 208.7 ft, N 417.4 ft etc 2 acs.

From C-1 (Light Commercial) to A-1 (Agricultural) to allow residential development (house) on the property described as: Com SE cor E/2 SE Sec 36.10.11, th W 208.7 ft, N 417.4 ft etc 2 acs.

Zoning Case RZ04-014-05

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

/s/ Hal McMillin, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

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

President McMillin advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ04-015-05 which was a request by Stephen H. and Pamela G. Carnahan to rezone from C-2 (General Commercial) to R-MHP (Manufactured Home Park) to allow a manufactured home park (three spaces) at 139 East Dave Dugas Road in Ward Four (Police Jury District 12, Mr. Clement). President McMillin further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 19, 200, 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 the manufactured home must be skirted within ninety days of permit issuance; (3) that an occupational license must be obtained; and (4) that a six-foot wood privacy fence must be installed along the east property line prior to issuance of occupational license.

It was moved by Mr. Clement, seconded by Dr. Mackey and carried unanimously to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to Zoning Case RZ04-015-05 and that the request to rezone be granted with the stipulations outlined by said Board; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4907

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Stephen H. and Pamela G. Carnahan to rezone from C-2 (General Commercial) to R-MHP (Manufactured Home Park) to allow a manufactured home park (3 spaces) on the property described as: Com 208.7 feet E of SW cor of SW/4 of SE/4 of S22, T10S, R10W, thence E 208.7 feet, thence N 208.7 feet, thence W 208.7 feet, thence S 208.7 feet to the poc, less and except the W 95 feet and less and except the 30 foot right of way on the S side.

From C-2 (General Commercial) to R-MHP (Manufactured Home Park) to allow residential development (house) with the following stipulations: 1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; 2) that the manufactured home must be skirted within 90 days of permit issuance; 3) that an occupational license must be obtained; and 4) that a 6 foot wood privacy fence must be installed along the East property line prior to issuance of occupational license, on the property described as: Com 208.7 feet E of SW cor of SW/4 of SE/4 of S22, T10S, R10W, thence E 208.7 feet, thence N 208.7 feet, thence W 208.7 feet, thence S 208.7 feet to the poc, less and except the W 95 feet and less and except the 30 foot right of way on the S side.

Zoning Case RZ04-015-05

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

/s/ Hal McMillin, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

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

President McMillin advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ04-017-05 which was a request by Moss Family et al to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) to I-2 (Heavy Industrial) to allow an asphalt plant and borrow pit (11 acres) on Bayou D’Inde Pass Road in Ward Four (Police Jury District 15, Mr. Danahay). President McMillin further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, and deferred action to allow the applicant time to submit a $300,000 cash deposit, as per the recommendation of the Division of Engineering and Public Works.

Upon motion made by Mr. Danahay, which was duly seconded by Mr. Moon and carried unanimously, action was deferred relative to Zoning Case RZ04-017-05 until such time as a recommendation was received from the Planning and Zoning Board relative to said case.

President McMillin advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ03-016-05 which was a request by Loice Firmature to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to C-1 (Light Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), and R-M (Multi-Family Residential) to allow commercial and multi-family development on the southwest corner of Ham Reid Road and Lake Street in Ward Three (Police Jury District 6, Mr. Moon). President McMillin further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, and voted ten (for) to one (against) to recommend that the request be granted with the following stipulations: (1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file, provided that the Director of the Division of Planning and Development, or his designee, may authorize adjustments to site plans in light of technical or engineering considerations discovered during development; (2) that all parking must be concrete and located on the side and rear of all commercial buildings; (3) that all signs must be low profile monument signs; (4) that the use be limited to professional offices, medical offices, retail outlets, daycare facility and a convenience store within the C-1 (Light Commercial) area; (5) that the use be limited to restaurants only in C-2 (General Commercial) and the same uses approved in C-1 (Light Commercial), as stated in recommendation #4; (6) that the architectural design for the development be limited to the following themes: French Country, Traditional and Contemporary; (7) that all utilities must be underground with the “Le Firm Park” development; (8) that the 5.42 acre tract depicted on site plan as “Reserve” must remain as open space, less and except utilities; (9) that all required parking for the multi-family development must be in the rear of the duplexes; and (10) that all development must be landscaped and approved by the Division of Planning and Development.

Upon motion made by Mr. Moon, which was duly seconded by Mr. Danahay and carried unanimously, the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board was approved with reference to Zoning Case RZ03-016-05, and the request to rezone was granted with the stipulations outlined by said Board; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4908

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Loice Firmature to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential), C-1 (Light Commercial), and C-2 (General Commercial) to R-M (Multi Family Residential) to allow commercial and multi-family development on the property described as: Commencing at the NE corner of Section 36, Township 10S, Range 9W, thence W 1956 feet along the N line of Section 36, thence S 130 feet, thence E 660 feet, thence S 840 feet, thence E 1,296 feet, thence north 970 feet to the poc.

From R-1 (Single Family Residential), C-1 (Light Commercial), and C-2 (General Commercial) to R-M (Multi Family Residential) to allow commercial and multi-family development with the following stipulations: 1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file, provided that the Director of Planning and Development or designee my authorize adjustments to site plans in light of technical or engineering considerations discovered during development; 2) that all parking must be concrete and located on the side and rear of all commercial buildings; 3) that all signs must be low profile monument signs; 4) that the use be limited to professional offices, medical offices, retail outlets, daycare facility and a convenience store within the C-1 (Light Commercial) area; 5) that the use be limited to restaurants only in C-2 (General Commercial) and the same uses approved in C-1 (Light Commercial) as stated in staff recommendation #4; 6) that the architectural design for the development be limited to the following themes: French Country, Traditional, and Contemporary; 7) that all utilities must be underground withing the “Le Firm Park” development; 8) that the 5.42 acre tract depicted on site plan as “Reserve” must remain open space, less and except utilities; 9) that all required parking for the multi family development must be in rear of the duplexes; and 10) that all development must be landscaped and approved by the Division of Planning and Development, on the property described as: Commencing at the NE corner of Section 36, Township 10S, Range 9W, thence W 1956 feet along the N line of Section 36, thence S 130 feet, thence E 660 feet, thence S 840 feet, thence E 1,296 feet, thence north 970 feet to the poc.

Zoning Case RZ03-016-05

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

/s/ Hal McMillin, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

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

Motion was made by Mrs. Griffin, seconded by Mr. Guidry and carried unanimously that the following resolution be adopted:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, notification has been received that an application for a Department of the Army Permit has been made to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and an application for a Water Quality Certification (WQC) has been made to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality by Joseph Haiko to install and maintain a vinyl bulkhead, timber wharf, boat house and fill for erosion control and private recreational use. The proposed structures are to be located within an area approximately 100 feet long and 23 feet wide, extending lengthwise parallel to the mean low water shoreline, the outer edge to be about 18 feet channelward therefrom. Approximately 60 cubic yards of hauled-in limestone aggregate would be placed as fill behind the bulkhead. Said project is located on the West Fork of the Calcasieu River, at 1048 Edwards Road, Sulphur, in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; and

WHEREAS, the staff of the Division of Planning and Development has evaluated the proposal of Joseph Haiko relative to its compliance with current parish ordinances and provisions, such as zoning classification, flood zone regulations, coastal zone regulations, and required development permits, as well as its impact on the Parish Transportation System; and

WHEREAS, upon completion of evaluation, the staff of the Division of Planning and Development concluded there is no cause for objection to the permit application based on parish ordinances and provisions, provided all necessary permits are obtained from the Parish Division of Planning and Development prior to commencement of the project.

NOW THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in regular session on the 21^st day of April, 2005, that it does hereby indicate no objection to the proposal of Joseph Haiko to install and maintain a vinyl bulkhead, timber wharf, boat house and fill for erosion control and private recreational use. The proposed structures are to be located within an area approximately 100 feet long and 23 feet wide, extending lengthwise parallel to the mean low water shoreline, the outer edge to be about 18 feet channelward therefrom. Approximately 60 cubic yards of hauled-in limestone aggregate would be placed as fill behind the bulkhead. Said project is located on the West Fork of the Calcasieu River, at 1048 Edwards Road, Sulphur, in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the no objection position of the Police Jury in this permit application is based solely on the evaluation of the parish staff of the project’s effect on current parish ordinances and provisions, provided said work meets with the rules and regulations of the Corps of Engineers and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, subject to Best Management Practices during the course of construction as set forth by EPA guidelines, and approvals are received from all appropriate state and federal agencies, and further, that all necessary development permits are obtained from the Calcasieu Parish Division of Planning and Development prior to commencement of the project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a study on the environmental impact of the aforementioned project has not been made due to lack of expertise of the parish staff to accomplish such a study, and the Police Jury requests that agencies and/or individuals with such expertise make an environmental review of said project and forward their findings to the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

THUS PASSED AND ADOPTED on the date above inscribed.

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

President McMillin advised that action would be taken at this time relative to reconsideration of a resolution adopted by the Police Jury on November 18, 2004, indicating an objection to a proposal of Joseph R. Palermo, Jr. for a Corps of Engineers’ permit to clear and grade a 47-acre tract, dredge to construct drainage facilities, and place earthen fill for home sites and driveways, all as necessary to develop a 42-lot single family residential subdivision, due to the receipt of a watershed study which examined the impact of the proposed development and made recommendations for improvements within the watershed boundary. President McMillin pointed out that the project was located on the northwest corner of the intersection of High Hope Road and Heurtevant Road near Sulphur, and further, that the work described within the application was partially completed prior to obtaining a Department of the Army permit and was in violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act. (On November 18, 2004, the Planning Staff recommended that the Police Jury object to this project application due to poor drainage and flooding that was occurring in the area, and the Police Jury adopted a Resolution of Objection relative to this proposal. Subsequent to adoption of this Resolution of Objection, an engineering study was commissioned by the petitioner, the results of which were presented to the Police Jury at its Regular Meeting on March 17, 2005, at which time a motion was approved to set April 21, 2005, as a date for reconsideration of the previous action.)

It was moved by Mr. Andrepont and seconded by Mr. Guidry to adopt a resolution to be forwarded to the U. S. Corps of Engineers indicating no objection to this project as proposed, due to the receipt of a Watershed Study which concluded, after examination of the proposed project and recommendation of specific improvements within the watershed boundary, that the project as proposed created no negative impact to properties within said watershed, and further, that the resolution adopted on November 18, 2004, indicating objection to this project be rescinded.

Mr. Vickers reminded the Jury that the Corps of Engineers would make the final decision on whether a permit was issued to Mr. Palermo and that the Police Jury was, as it was often asked to do by the Corps, providing its input in the form of either a resolution of no objection or a resolution of objection. He pointed out that most of these requests for input were not usually contested in any way and that the Corps may decide, if requested, to have another public hearing based on what the residents’ feelings were relative to issuance of a permit.

Mr. Vickers stated that in its evaluation of the proposal, the staff had relied on the facts and recommendations contained in the study performed by Lancon Engineering, Inc. which had also been reviewed and evaluated by the Parish engineering staff. Mr. Vickers stated that the staff’s recommendation was for the Police Jury to adopt a resolution of no objection.

Mr. Maurice Tynes, 352 Pattie Lane, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that he lived just off of Bankens Road which was the northern boundary of the water shed in question. He advised that the High Hope area encompassed approximately four square miles, not counting Bankens Road, and there were 1200 residents in this area. Mr. Tynes stated that he had some opening remarks and a slide show which would give the jurors a good look at what the homeowners were experiencing in this residential area.

Mr. Tynes made reference to a packet of information which he thought had been given to the jurors by Mr. Palermo’s “interests” which included a map of Mr. Palermo’s proposal. He advised that the ditch from the proposed development ran right through his front yard.

Mr. Tynes stated that the Police Jury had been requested by a single property owner to issue a resolution of objection or a resolution of no objection for a proposed subdivision, and he pointed out that on November 18, 2004, the Police Jury had adopted a resolution of objection to the development. Mr. Tynes advised that the Corps of Engineers routinely solicited such comments from local agencies but that it was not required by the Corps to forward any comment to them. Mr. Tynes stated that now the Police Jury was being asked to rescind its resolution of objection which the Jury had not been legally required to adopt and to reverse the original decision and indicate no objection. Mr. Tynes also stated that the request was from the same individual property owner.

Mr. Tynes stated that it was very important to point out that on November 18, 2004, and on this date, the Police Jury had no legal duty to act either way (upon the request of the Corps of Engineers for input). He also stated that there was no ordinance or statute or Corps requirement that mandated the Police Jury to take action on this matter, but the Police Jury had voluntarily taken action on November 18, 2004, for a single property owner.

Mr. Tynes contended that when the Police Jury took action under these circumstances, it gave up and lost the statutory immunity granted by LSA—R.S. 9:2798.1 from any liabilities or damages based on the performance or failure to perform or exercise its policy making or discretionary duties and acts. Mr. Tynes stated that was important to him as an attorney and taxpayer because if the Police Jury approved the development by adopting a resolution of no objection, it was tantamount to saying to the potential buyers of the 42 lots in the proposed development that the lots they were purchasing were fit for the use intended, meaning they would not flood in normal rainfall events, but that they did indeed flood.

Mr. Tynes continued by saying that what was important was that after seeing the photographs of the flooding and being told about the drainage problems, the Police Jury would be acting with knowledge of the situation, not ignorance of it, and any approval would be a willful act after being made abundantly aware of the facts of the flooding problems. Mr. Tynes stated that as such, the Police Jury could be held liable for any damages to a purchaser who bought one of the lots based on the Police Jury’s approval which he reiterated was not necessary – that the Jury could choose not to comment and leave the matter to the Corps to decide.

Mr. Tynes stated that it had long been the law that a governing body could be held liable for negligent approval of developments that placed too great a strain on a drainage system and caused flooding in an existing development. He cited two Louisiana cases to support his statement, e.g. Boudreaux vs. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development with respect to construction of Interstate-12, and Harvey vs. Boyd (Lafayette).

Mr. Tynes stated that the study done by Lancon Engineering, Inc. was an open channel flow study and did not take into consideration embankments in the form of ditches and back water. Mr. Tynes also stated that the study was not valid, was flawed, and would not hold up in court.

Mr. Tynes pointed out that both the November 18, 2004, resolution pertaining to Mr. Palermo’s application for a Corps permit, as well as the July 17, 2004, resolution pertaining to Mr. Lee Marsalise’s application (also for development in this area of the Parish), both included a statement that a study on the environmental impact of the aforementioned project had not been made due to lack of expertise of the parish staff to accomplish such a study. He questioned how the staff could evaluate Mr. Lancon’s study when it did not know how to do a study.

Mr. Tynes again pointed out that the Police Jury was under no obligation to review the proposed development, that a letter could perhaps be forwarded from Mr. McMurry to Mr. Palermo advising that the Police Jury would rather not be involved in the process at this point but that if the Police Jury proceeded at its discretion because of a person’s request and not as a result of enactment of a public policy, the Jury’s statutory immunity would be lost.

Mr. Tynes asked that the Police Jury suspend encouragement of development in the High Hope area until a comprehensive drainage plan was completed and implemented. He stated that to continue development and to allow people to buy ignorant of the flooding problems, when the Police Jury was cognizant of the problems, was not beneficial to anyone, not even Mr. Palermo.

Mr. Tynes stated that the residents of the High Hope area wanted appropriate development which maximized property desirability and value and that a well-drained area would enhance the value and desirability of undeveloped land which would increase the property value and the desirability of the whole area.

Mr. Tynes stated that the engineering work done thus far was too limited geographically and did not cover the entire water discharge area in question. He further stated that the back water was not considered because it was being blocked by the ditches, and the study should have included land all the way to Little River. Mr. Tynes explained that the Corps of Engineers governed the waters of the United States which were defined to include wetlands and tributaries along with natural bodies of water, and the Corps defined headwaters going as far upstream to the point where average annual flow was five cubic feet per second, which were basically water ditches along streets and/or lots, so that a body of water as defined by the Corps could be very small in size.

Mr. Tynes asked the Police Jury, if it was going to take action, to compare apples to apples and not apples to cucumbers and to say that the drainage area to be considered by the Corps should go from the small roadside ditch on Heurtevant and High Hope Roads, then under the railroad tracks and along Bankens Road, all the way downstream to Little River.

Mr. Tynes then began his slide show stating that it would demonstrate the frequent flooding in this area since 2001 when because of the development on Louisiana Highway 27, the water did not go anywhere. He presented a list of different criteria used by the Corps in evaluating applications for permits, which were things he said Mr. Palermo would need to work on if he was granted a permit. Mr. Tynes stated that the assumptions in Mr. Lancon’s study were based on published data but was done by people who did not live in the area and who, therefore, might not be fully informed of current conditions. Mr. Tynes further stated that he did not know if Mr. Lancon had looked at all of the stopped up ditches as an open channel, because in his opinion, there were no open channels in the area, and a calculation of open channels would not work in this case.

Mr. Tynes talked about the flap gates on the concrete bridge across High Hope Road which were installed so that water could pass under the bridge without destroying it, but he said sticks and other debris held them open, and they needed to be kept clean at all times. Mr. Tynes also showed a picture of a dam created by debris north of the proposed development which caused standing water, mosquito breeding, etc. He stated that there was an assumption that water flowed through the ditches in this area, but it did not, and he showed a picture of a ditch south of the proposed development which never flowed and constantly held water, the condition of which had been worse since 2001.

Mr. Tynes pointed out that Gravity Drainage District No. Five of Wards Five and Six was the largest drainage district geographically in the Parish, yet the District was attempting to operate on only a little over $200,000 per year. He stated that there were a lot of residents and property to be developed, but no money to provide adequate drainage, and that he was all for a joint services agreement whereby Gravity Drainage District No. Five of Ward Four could help out but before any drainage work could be done, it would have to be approved by the Corps.

Mr. Tynes advised that the High Hope Road had similar weather patterns and rainfall amounts as Moss Bluff, and he felt that accurate rainfall calculations were not used in the study. He pointed out that Mr. Lancon did not live in the area. Mr. Tynes continued by saying that the residents of the area felt that the calculations and run-off curve numbers were invalid because of empirical comparison of the factors pertaining to a one-acre forest and a one-acre pasture and considering paved roads. He stated that it was considered in the study to be 100% run-off but he urged the jurors to keep in mind that run-off could not occur the way it was calculated in open channels because of embankments and backwater. Mr. Tynes stated that calculating backwater was a complicated engineering thing to do but that it was required in a valid water discharge study when talking about run-off and its effects on flooding.

Mr. Tynes stated that the calculations in Mr. Lancon’s study pertaining to Mr. Palermo’s proposed development did not have anything to do with the current situation because it was not a matter of 3/8-inch, it was the depth ranging from 0 - 30 inches that needed attention. He also stated that assumptions were made in the study about development criteria that might or might not occur depending on roof size of the dwellings, type of driveways, surface friction, etc.

Mr. Tynes advised that the wastewater discharge from each home in the area was approximately 8,000 gallons per year, not including sewer discharge, and all of this water was going nowhere.

Mr. Tynes stated that the residents’ concerns were documented in a petition containing 269 signatures which had previously been presented to Mr. Vickers and the Corps of Engineers, and he felt certain even more signatures could have been obtained.

Mr. Tynes stated that Mr. Palermo’s development would flood, and purchasers of his lots would be calling on Mr. Vickers to get their money back. He stated that one could build a house on a high pad but questioned what they would do with outbuildings, barns, riding lawnmowers, etc.

Mr. Tynes showed a picture of property on Broussard Road which he said was outside the flood zone and the site of the Lee Marsalise/Del Dolan development which Mr. Dolan had described to the Police Jury as “high, dry” land. Mr. Tynes stated that Mr. Dolan should have told the Jury that the parish ditches were full of debris and that the land was not high and dry except when the weather was dry.

Mr. Tynes stated that there were currently 170 homes in this area and that 42 more would substantially affect the drainage and also the property values if people bought Mr. Palermo’s lots because they were inexpensive due to the flooding, particularly if cheap structures were subsequently put up. Mr. Tynes stated that there were also concerns about safety with people driving out of high water and associated brake failures, pointing out that Highway 27 and High Hope Road had recently had five fatalities in a single accident. He also spoke of the residents’ concerns about waterborne and mosquito-borne diseases such as West Nile virus.

Mr. Tynes stated that the needs and welfare of the people in this area should be protected and that it was only proper for the Police Jury to not continue to allow development in flood-prone areas. He concluded by saying that the residents did not want any further development until the existing drainage problems were corrected, that any additional development should match the existing residential mix of homes and mobile homes, and that there should be a decrease in density and enlargement of lots in the proposed development.

Mr. Darrell LeBlanc and Mrs. Jackie LeBlanc, 327 High Hope Road, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that they had lived in the area since 1977. Mrs. LeBlanc read a brief prepared statement as follows:

We would like to voice our opposition to the proposed Palermo Subdivision based on the continual flooding and poor drainage conditions in our High Hope Road community. Our home is located in Pine Knolls Subdivision, a block away from Heurtevant Road and the proposed subdivision site.

We did not have any severe drainage problems until 2001. We even survived the 1980 50-year flood with no problems. Ever since 2001, our home has flooded four times with some of our immediate neighbors having flooding also. The present condition of our drainage is terrible. It only takes a two-to-three inch rainfall to have water at our doorstep, and then it takes a long time to drain off.

Emotionally it is very discouraging and devastating to see dirty, contaminated water enter into your home. It is terrifying to see the water coming in, and you can do nothing to stop it. It just keeps coming and continues to rise with ants, insects, and worms. You have to immediately rearrange your life, including missing work, to move things to a higher place. The septic system is unuseable. You can’t use toilets or take baths, etc. until the water recedes. Sometimes it takes two to three days to get back to normal. We have experienced this each time our home has had flooding in the past four years.

In reference to Mr. Lancon’s report stating that the impact of the additional run-off from the proposed subdivision would be only 3/8-inch and is considered minimal, I would like to state that many times 3/8-inch made the difference of whether or not dirty and contaminated water came into our homes. 3/8-inch would not be a problem if the current drainage conditions are corrected before the new development. There is no doubt that the property value of our home has gone down due to the flooding in our area. Please improve the drainage now, before the development, so all residents can benefit in the future.”

Mr. Cade Cole, 911 Overton Street, DeQuincy, Vice-President of the Board of Commissioners of Gravity Drainage District No. Six of Wards Five and Six, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that the drainage was a “huge problem” in this area, and his Board would respectfully request that the Police Jury think about the problem before rescinding its previous resolution of objection. Mr. Cole advised that in 1997 his district was issued a “cease and desist” order from the Corps of Engineers which meant they could not dig ditches anywhere and that after a lot of costly mitigation, the order had finally been lifted.

Mr. Cole stated that if all of the recommendations in Mr. Lancon’s study could be fulfilled, the drainage situation could be improved, but the District’s financial assets were limited and if it was to be hit with a $160,000 fine by the Corps, it would bankrupt the District. He also stated that if the Police Jury could provide the money for mitigation, the District could take steps to solve some of the drainage problems. Mr. Cole pointed out that he and the late-Mayor Buddy Henagan had met with various officials in Baton Rouge to seek grant funding and funds had been included in the Capital Outlay Bill, but the District was still waiting for the money which had been earmarked to do a study. Mr. Cole stated that the Board was trying to scrape up any money it could to do some of the study but that the recommendations contained in Mr. Lancon’s study would result in six-figure amounts for mitigation through the Corps. He stated that the Board just did not have that kind of money.

Mr. Cole stated he was strongly in favor of the idea of consolidation of the drainage districts and because that was a matter currently being studied by the Police Jury, the issue of drainage was currently in a state of flux in the Parish.

Mr. Cole stated that if the Drainage Board could get the money tomorrow to make drainage improvements in the High Hope Road area, the Board would still have to get approval from the Corps and in the meantime, Mr. Palermo would have developed his property which would not help the situation. He pointed out that the last independent study in the High Hope area was done 11 years ago by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and that there were some general observations in that study about alleviating backwater from Little River which the Drainage Board and Police Jury had tried to do something about in 1997 by installing flap gates on the bridge crossing High Hope Road. Mr. Cole stated that the study also called the area virtually flat, that it was certainly considered wetlands where mitigation would be required, and recommended that building restrictions be established in most of the property north of High Hope Road by requiring people to build well above the 100-year flood elevation. Mr. Cole pointed out that much of this area was not technically in a flood zone and would not otherwise be subject to those regulations.

Mr. Cole concluded by saying that the Drainage Board, the Police Jury, and the State were all trying to make things better and from a drainage standpoint, Mr. Palermo’s proposed development would harm any efforts to improve the area and would make the situation worse, while the various entities were striving to make it better.

Mr. Roland E. GoBeil, 147 High Hope Road, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and asked that the jurors keep an open mind when making a decision about this serious problem. He also asked them to keep in mind what they would do if it was their property involved.

Mr. Jay Madison, 1039 Highway 27 South, Sulphur, President of the Board of Commissioners of Gravity Drainage District No. Six of Wards Five and Six, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that for the last two years, representatives of the High Hope Road area had been attending the Drainage Board meetings to see what could be done and that the citizens had worked very cooperatively with the Board. Mr. Madison also stated that the District had been ably served by President McMillin and Mrs. Treme who represented this area.

Mr. Madison advised that there were three main problems the District had faced for a long time, those being: (1) when the Board tried to obtain permits for some of these flood-prone areas to help alleviate part of the problem, they could not get them; (2) the area in question was a wetlands area, and the District had been shut down for a long period of time and was, therefore, behind schedule; and (3) the District could probably do something about the drainage problems but did not have the funds for mitigation required by the Corps.

Mr. Madison continued by saying that he had read the study done by Mr. Lancon. As a professional forester for the past 25 years, Mr. Madison stated that he understood percolation and run-off and that the facts spoke for themselves. He further stated that while there was not supposed to be a problem, the reality was that there was indeed a problem.

Mr. Madison then read a letter which had been drawn up by the Board at its last meeting as follows:

Severe drainage and flooding problems currently exist in the High Hope area and have been an ongoing area of concern for this Board for several years. It has come to our attention that the residents in this area are concerned that any additional development will impact their progress in resolving these problems.

The State of Louisiana has recognized that this area has a severe drainage problem, as evidenced by the awarding of a $25,000 grant planned to be used to fund an engineering study of the High Hope area. This Board has recognized that this area has a severe drainage problem as evidenced by the residents of the area having voiced their concerns to this Board, to the Calcasieu Parish Planning and Zoning Board by addressing Mr. Vickers, and the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury by addressing Mr. Hal McMillin.

The residents are currently working with this Board to correct the drainage problems. This Board respectfully requests that the Calcasieu Parish Planning and Zoning Board and the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury vote to delay any further development in this area pending resolution of drainage and flooding problems.

Mr. Madison concluded his remarks by saying that this area of the Parish had problems that would be ongoing and was a losing situation for any further development. He also stated that it just did not make sense to approve something that would cause problems for additional residents.

Mr. Ethan Miller, 3511 Hebert Drive, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury at this time and quoted the Police Jury’s mission statement as follows:

The mission of the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury is to consistently and efficiently provide the highest quality of services to the people of Calcasieu Parish in a manner that is responsive to the will and the needs of its citizens.

Mr. Miller pointed out that the people were here (at the meeting) and it was their will that this subdivision not be recommended.

There being no other persons wishing to appear before the Police Jury in opposition to this matter, President McMillin then opened the floor for questions and comments from the jurors.

Mr. Manuel stated that it was good to see this many people present to express their views about their situation. He further stated that he had friends who lived in this area, and he had witnessed the problems. Mr. Manuel stated that everyone wanted to see development in the Parish but if development was allowed to happen and it came back to “bite” them, the Jury would not have accomplished anything.

Mr. Manuel advised that everyone needed to put their heads together to alleviate the drainage problems in this area and that he would support the people and the jurors representing that area by voting to delay the development of this subdivision until the drainage problems were resolved.

Mr. Landry suggested that since Mr. Palermo’s proposed development was not considered a subdivision by the current definition contained in the Parish’s subdivision ordinance, if that definition was refined and this type of situation occurred in the future, the developer would have to get subdivision approval. He pointed out that if it had not been for the wetlands issue related to the Corps of Engineers, this process would not have occurred.

With regard to Mr. Landry’s request for edification, Mr. Vickers explained that based on existing parish ordinances regarding subdivisions, property that adjoined a parish road was not subject to the provisions of said ordinance, and further, that it would have to be on a non-maintained street which would primarily involve new construction to be covered under the subdivision regulations. Mr. Vickers pointed out that flood plain and building regulations would still apply.

In answer to Mr. Landry’s request, Mr. Vickers stated that he would develop some proposed amendments to the ordinance in the near future for review by the Police Jury to address this situation.

Mr. Landry asked Mr. McMurry if the Parish could loan money to Gravity Drainage District No. Six of Wards Five and Six to get the project going, understanding that it might take a long time – if ever – for the Police Jury to be paid back.

Mr. McMurry responded by saying that the Police Jury had a significant reserve, and it only mattered how much they wanted to loan the District but that the key would be what kind of assurance would the Police Jury have that it would be paid back, pointing out that Mr. Cole had indicated that the Board operated on a shoe-string budget for the most part.

Mr. Landry asked about the possibility of a grant, and Mr. McMurry referred to the Parish’s Road and Drainage Trust Fund, pointing out that the District had been funded under that program on more than one occasion for various projects.

Mrs. Treme commended the Board members of the drainage district and stated that said district was huge in terms of geographical area, covering an area from the Sabine River to the Beauregard Parish line to Ward Four and into Ward One, yet even with the massive geographical area, the Board only received about $200,000 a year to maintain all of the laterals contained therein.

Mrs. Treme stated that when she first began her service as a police juror in 1992, she had already been working with the people from the High Hope Road area with their problems. She continued by saying that she had nothing against development, that she and her father had a history of developing and selling land, but it was already known that the area in question had major drainage problems.

Mrs. Treme advised that she attended most of the Drainage Board meetings, and there were wonderful people on the Board as well as on High Hope Road, some of whom had lived there 30 years and not had problems until 1991. She stated that her concerns had nothing to do with the proposed development or the developer – her concern was that if 40 more families were added to the area, that would only serve to increase the burden on an area that already had a tremendous burden.

Mrs. Treme stated that she felt the Corps should have gone ahead and acted on the permit, one way or another, when the Police Jury had adopted its resolution of objection in November of 2004 and by not doing so, she felt the Corps had abdicated its responsibility and shifted it instead to the Police Jury.

Mrs. Treme asked her fellow colleagues, from the heart and from working with the residents of the High Hope area for the past 12 years, to realize that the residents were not opposing the development because they did not want more neighbors but because they did not want more neighbors to have their same problems. She pleaded with the jurors to not reverse its earlier decision and to not issue a resolution of no objection to the Corps.

In answer to a question by Mr. Andrepont, Mr. Vickers stated that there was no prohibition against building in the High Hope area at the current time. Mr. Andrepont stated that he appreciated the comments made earlier by Mr. Tynes, Mr. Cole, and Mrs. Treme, etc., however, he felt this was not a zoning issue but a land use issue. Mr. Andrepont stated that the Police Jury had adopted the resolution of objection in November of 2004 upon Mr. Vickers’ recommendation in that the developer was not in compliance but that since then, Mr. Palermo had met with Mr. Vickers and hired an engineer to do a study. Mr. Andrepont pointed out that he was not an engineer and had to take the word of Mr. Lancon that what he studied was valid. Mr. Andrepont also stated that the staff had thought the study was valid and after further review, Mr. Vickers had recommended that the Police Jury overturn the original resolution of objection and adopt a resolution of no objection. He stated that he had to trust Mr. Vickers’ credence and assume he had done his job in making the correct recommendation. Mr. Andrepont advised that it did not matter what the Police Jury said or did, the Corps would make the final decision.

Mr. Andrepont stated that at his request, the Board of Commissioners of Gravity Drainage District No. Five of Ward Four had voted unanimously to approve entering into a joint services agreement with Gravity Drainage District No. Six of Wards Five and Six, and this was done in good faith to help the people in the High Hope area with their flooding problems. Mr. Andrepont pointed out that after all the input from the residents on this date, he had yet to hear a proposed drainage plan for that area. He said that everyone knew what the problems were, but not one person had offered a solution.

Mr. Andrepont stated that if his motion on the floor was approved, it would take the Corps at least six months to come back with a recommendation to either ratify or deny Mr. Palermo’s request for a permit, and what was needed was for the drainage boards to get off-center, meet with the Corps and find out what laterals could be cleared and which ones could not, and then proceed with doing that.

Mr. Andrepont stated that he had been a juror for 13 years and with respect to Mr. Tynes’ comment about the flooding having started in 2001 with the work on Highway 27, he felt the grievance should be with the State. He also stated that he had not heard a formal request for assistance from Gravity Drainage District No. Six of Wards Five and Six until the meeting on this date. Mr. Andrepont advised that the Houston River Fire Department had “zero” funds but asked the Police Jury for financial assistance, and the Jury had helped them, with some of the loan having been paid back and some not. Mr. Andrepont stated that the Police Jury had always addressed the needs of entities who lacked funds.

Mr. Andrepont stated that he did not know how the jurors would vote on this issue, but he asked them to vote their conscience, not based on whether they liked or disliked someone. Mr. Andrepont explained that what the Police Jury would be saying, if the motion on the floor passed, was that they did not oppose Mr. Palermo applying for a permit and that even if the Jury voted in opposition, Mr. Palermo would probably continue with the application process anyway.

Mr. Andrepont concluded his comments by saying that if the developer did succeed in getting his permit and with clearing and developing the lots, he did not know who he would sell said lots to, but that was not the Jury’s problem, and further, that what the members of the Jury were to decide on this date was whether they had opposition to Mr. Palermo applying for a Corps of Engineers’ permit.

Mr. Moon stated that regardless of whether the development was permitted or not, a solution needed to be found for the drainage problems in the High Hope area as well as in other areas of the Parish, however, building of structures could not be stopped just because there were areas in the Parish that flooded. Mr. Moon pointed out that the discussion on this date brought to the forefront the need to address drainage problems in the Parish.

President McMillin announced for the benefit of the television viewing audience that the Jury was experiencing technical difficulties with the audio system and that those were being worked on to get them resolved as soon as possible.

President McMillin asked if there was anyone who wanted to address the Police Jury at this time on behalf of the developer, Mr. Palermo, and no comments were made.

Mr. Harvey Boyd, 1427 Guadalupe Street, Sulphur, member of the Board of Commissioners of Gravity Drainage District No. Five of Ward Four, appeared before the Police Jury at this time and stated that his district was very willing to help the drainage district in Wards Five and Six. He further stated that his district was very fortunate in having a good tax base, and they were willing to share that with the people of Ward Six.

Mr. Boyd stated that the issue which needed to be addressed with the Corps of Engineers was why it would not allow drainage boards to clean existing drainage ditches to drain property without spending taxpayer dollars to mitigate land to do so.

Mr. Manuel advised that the Corps had held up the drainage board in Ward One for almost a year for placing spoil on some wetlands, and they called the Corps who sent a representative from New Orleans to Moss Bluff. Mr. Manuel further advised that when the representative got there, the spoil was moved, and within half a day the drainage board was back in operation. He recommended that Mr. Boyd get someone from the New Orleans office of the Corps to come tell them what they needed to do.

Mr. Boyd stated that they had met with the Corps many times and that more assistance was needed with regard to this matter.

Mrs. Treme advised that Gravity Drainage District No. Six of Wards Five and Six became a better district after being shut down by the Corps, because they learned different ways of cleaning culverts due to the fact that they could not dig any ditches. Mrs. Treme further advised that the Corps now had on computer every lateral in Wards Five and Six, so the Board knew which ones were approved for digging and which ones were not.

Mrs. Treme stated that while she realized that there were some solutions that might help the drainage in the High Hope area, the fact remained that the area was totally dammed up on four sides by the Houston River, Little River, Highway 27, and the railroad tracks to the east. Mrs. Treme further stated that unless the railroad company would allow the Parish or Drainage District to install larger culverts under the railroad tracks to move the water on out of the area, the drainage problems would continue.

Mrs. Treme expressed her appreciation for the hard work done by the drainage board in Wards Five and Six, and the assistance the Ward Four drainage board had provided. She stated that she had not been aware that the drainage districts could share funding and that was why she had not asked for even more assistance from the Ward Four drainage board in the past.

Mrs. Treme closed by saying that the Wards Five and Six drainage board was doing everything it could to solve the problem in the High Hope area but again, when an area was hemmed in on all four sides, it was very difficult.

Mr. Lee Lancon, 3615 Collette Street, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and in response to Mr. Tynes’ earlier comment about the study having been performed by someone who did not live in the area, he wanted to assure the Police Jury that he (Mr. Lancon) had the wherewithal and ability to perform studies and do projects in areas and on streets other than the one on which he lived. Mr. Lancon stated that his company did work in many different places, and it was up to the engineer to do his due diligence to investigate and take all factors into consideration on any project they were working on. Mr. Lancon further stated that he believed his firm had done that in a manner that met the standards of the civil engineering industry.

Mr. Lancon asked the jurors to keep in mind that his study dealt with the specific impact Mr. Palermo’s proposed development would have on the water shed and determine what that impact was, whether big or small. He stated that his study revealed that it was a small impact. Mr. Lancon pointed out that there was no doubt there were severe flooding problems in the watershed affecting the High Hope area, however, the impact Mr. Palermo’s project would have on that would be negligible.

Mrs. Treme stated that Mr. Lancon’s study was correct insofar as what he was studying, and she commended Mr. Lancon for his work on some major engineering studies in other areas of the Parish. She told Mr. Lancon that the issue under discussion had nothing to do with his study or his credibility as far as she was concerned, because she knew he did exemplary work.

At Mrs. Treme’s request, Mr. (Cade) Cole came before the Police Jury again to explain the district’s efforts to clean the major lateral in the area under discussion. Mr. Cole stated that the Board tried to do it under a general permit but was told by the Corps that did not apply. He further stated that they tried for a provisional permit, but they did not have the money to put up front to pay for mitigation. Mr. Cole also stated that the Board had submitted a permit application to dig a ditch bask east off the existing lateral, cleaning it to the Kansas City Southern railroad tracks, as well as putting more culverts under the tracks, and the answer was “no”.

Mr. Cole also advised that the board had met with the Corps to try to do this as maintenance work, and the Corp’s answer was “no”; they had tried to apply and pay the mitigation costs when they had the money, and the answer was “no”. Mr. Cole stated that if the Police Jury could pay the mitigation costs, the board would immediately apply for a permit from the Corps. He pointed out that Mr. Boyd had been very helpful and that together, the two drainage districts could do a lot of good if the money for mitigation costs could be found.

Mr. Joseph R. Palermo, Jr., 1502 Palermo Drive, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury at this time and stated that when he purchased this property, he did not think he would cause all this trouble, but he felt it was for the good. Mr. Palermo admitted there was a drainage problem in this area of the Parish, but he had not known the problem was as large as it was.

Mr. Palermo stated that he did not know about the meeting in November of 2004 when the Police Jury issued a resolution of objection to his proposed development until he read about it in the newspaper. He stated that after that, he met with Mr. Vickers, Mr. McMillin, and Mr. Andrepont, and they requested a drainage study which he had hired an engineer to do.

Mr. Palermo advised that he had done everything the staff had asked him to do and that if there was a drainage problem, he wanted to work with the residents in that area, not fight them. Mr. Palermo stated that he had no problem granting rights-of-way (for drainage purposes) and that all he was asking was that the Police Jury send a letter to the Corps rescinding the previous action.

Mr. Andrepont called the question on the motion on the floor, and President McMillin advised that he had one more juror who had asked to be recognized. He then called on Dr. Mackey who said that he had listened very carefully to both sides of this issue, and he had been very impressed with the intent and effort, but he still felt that there would not be much gained by the proposed development until the drainage problems were solved.

President McMillin stated that as President, he had not debated this issue but since the area under discussion was in his police jury district, he wanted to say that he was not in favor of putting another 42 dwellings in an area that already had severe flooding problems. President McMillin stated that he would cast his vote on this issue and asked for a reverse roll call vote on the motion on the floor which was to adopt a resolution to be forwarded to the U. S. Corps of Engineers indicating no objection to this project as proposed, due to the receipt of a Watershed Study which concluded, after examination of the proposed project and recommendation of specific improvements within the watershed boundary, that the project as proposed created no negative impact to properties within said watershed, and further, that the resolution adopted on November 18, 2004, indicating objection to this project be rescinded. The result of the vote was as follows:

YEAS:Mr. Andrepont, Mr. Danahay, Mrs. Eason, Mrs. Griffin, Mr. Guidry, Mr. Guillory, Mr. Landry, and Mr. Moon

NAYS:Mr. Clement, Mr. Collins, Dr. Mackey, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Stelly, Mrs. Treme, and President McMillin

ABSENT:None

NOT VOTING:None

The vote being eight (in favor of) to seven (against) the motion, President McMillin declared said motion as having carried; whereupon, the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, notification has been received that an application for a Department of the Army Permit has been made to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and an application for a Water Quality Certification (WQC) has been made to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality by Joseph R. Palermo, Jr. to clear and grade a 47 acre tract, dredge to construct drainage facilities and place earthen fill for homesites and driveways, all as necessary to develop a 42 lot single family residential subdivision. Approximately 24.0 acres of jurisdictional mixed pine/bottomland hardwood wetlands would be impacted by project implementation. Said project is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of High Hope Road and Heurtevant Road, in Section 35, T8S - R10W, in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; and

WHEREAS, the staff of the Division of Planning and Development evaluated the proposal of Joseph R. Palermo, Jr. relative to its compliance with current parish ordinances and provisions, such as zoning classification, flood zone regulations, coastal zone regulations, and required development permits, as well as its impact on the Parish Transportation System; and

WHEREAS, upon completion of evaluation, the staff of the Division of Planning and Development concluded there was cause for objection to the permit application based on poor drainage and flooding that is occurring in this area of the Parish; and

WHEREAS, several people attended the regular meeting of the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury on November 18, 2004, in opposition to the permit application because of drainage problems in the area of the proposed development; and

WHEREAS, after discussion of this matter, the Police Jury voted unanimously to issue a resolution of objection to the proposal of Joseph R. Palermo, Jr. to develop a residential subdivision at the corner of High Hope Road and Heurtevant Road due to the need for the current drainage problem to be resolved and not further exacerbated; and

WHEREAS, at its Regular Meeting on March 17, 2005, the Police Jury received a report from its Division of Planning and Development concerning an engineering study performed by Lancon Engineers, Inc., at the request of Joseph R. Palermo, Jr., entitled “Watershed Study, Proposed Residential Development for Joe Palermo Jr., High Hope Road at Heurteurvant Road, LEI Project No. 04-045, January 2005" relative to the proposed development, wherein the staff reported that the recommendations in said study had been found by the Parish’s engineering staff to be acceptable in terms of the conclusions contained therein that the proposed development would have a negligible impact upon the watershed that sometimes floods; and

WHEREAS, at the meeting on March 17, 2005, the Police Jury voted to place an item on the agenda for consideration at its Regular Meeting on April 21, 2005, to reconsider previous action taken relative to the request of the Corps of Engineers for comment on this proposed development; and

WHEREAS, at the meeting on April 21, 2005, the Calcasieu Parish Division of Planning and Development recommended the issuance of a resolution of no objection for the proposed subdivision based on a full review of the study performed by Lancon Engineers, Inc., the recommendations contained therein, and additional information requested and reviewed by the Calcasieu Parish Division of Engineering as contained in a document also prepared by Lancon Engineers, Inc. entitled “Watershed Study Amendment, Proposed Residential Development for Joe Palermo Jr., High Hope Road at Heurteurvant Road, LEI Project No. 04-045, February 21, 2005"; and

WHEREAS, at the meeting on April 21, 2005, a lengthy debate was held on this issue, and testimony, photographs, and informational slides were presented by residents of the area, as well as members of the Board of Commissioners of Gravity Drainage District No. Five of Wards Five and Six, supporting their belief that the proposed development would only increase the area’s existing flooding and drainage problems; and

WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph R. Palermo, Jr. appeared before the Police Jury at the Regular Meeting on April 21, 2005, and agreed to adhere to the recommendations contained in the study referenced heretofore and to provide any necessary easements and/or rights-of-way to comply with said recommendations; and

WHEREAS, the Police Jury on April 21, 2005, approved a motion by a vote of eight in favor to seven against, that a resolution be forwarded to the U.S. Corps of Engineers indicating no objection to the project as proposed by Joseph R. Palermo, Jr., due to the receipt of the watershed study which concluded, after examination of the proposed project and recommendation of specific improvements within the watershed boundary, that the project as proposed created no negative impact to properties within said watershed, and further, that the Resolution adopted by the Police Jury on November 18, 2004, indicating objection to the project be rescinded.

NOW THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in regular session on the 21^st day of April, 2005, that it does hereby indicate no obje