November 17, 2005

                                                                                    Lake Charles, Louisiana

            The Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, met in Regular Session at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 17, 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 Elizabeth Conway Griffin, Mary Kaye Eason, 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 Parish Administrator; Mrs. Coleen Clark, Executive Secretary; Mr. Richard Gremillion, Director of the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness; Mrs. Cheryl Heisser, Director of Human Resources; Mr. Claude D. Smart, Parish Engineer; Mr. Allen L. Smith, Jr. of the firm of Plauche, Smith and Nieset, General Counsel; Ms. Kathy P. Smith, Recording Secretary; Mr. Jim Vickers, Director of Planning and Development; Mr. Gerry Trahan, Director of Facilities Management.

            President McMillin called the meeting to order. The invocation was pronounced by Dr. Mackey 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 2004/2005 CDBG Mossville Sewer Extensions.

            Mr. McMurry then proceeded to open the following bids:

            Cad-Son Construction, LLC                                                       $1,577,300.00

            Blake D. Hines, Inc.                                                                  $2,366,541.50

            There being no other bids, motion was made by Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Mrs. Griffin and carried unanimously that the bids be referred to the Project Engineer, Meyer and Associates, Inc., for final tabulation with further action thereon to be taken by the Police Jury at its Regular Meeting on December 1, 2005.

            President McMillin advised that bids would also be opened at this time, as advertised in accordance with law for action to be taken at 5:30 p.m., for Mossville Sewer Pump Stations.

            Mr. McMurry then proceeded to open the following bids:

            Cad-Son, LLC                                                                           $481,355.85

            Blake D. Hines, Inc.                                                                  $533,575.00

            There being no other bids, motion was made by Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Mrs. Griffin and carried unanimously that the bids be referred to the Project Engineer, Meyer and Associates, Inc., for final tabulation with further action thereon to be taken by the Police Jury at its Regular Meeting on December 1, 2005.

            President McMillin recognized Mr. Fred Godwin, who was recently reappointed as a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Lake Charles Port, Harbor and Terminal District representing the Police Jury, as being present at the meeting on this date.

            Mr. Godwin stated that he and Mr. Harry Hank were both nominated by the Police Jury and the City of Lake Charles for reappointment to the Board, and Governor Blanco had designated him as being the Police Jury’s representative and Mr. Hank, the City’s. Mr. Godwin urged the jurors to call on him any time they had a question about anything going on at the Port of Lake Charles, and he would provide information or whatever they needed. He stated that the Jury’s and the Board’s goals were the same – to better the Parish and surrounding areas.

            President McMillin stated that a report would be received at this time from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with reference to debris removal in Calcasieu Parish.

            Mr. Earl Groves of the Corps of Engineers (the Corps), temporary office address 2424 East Third Street, Lake Charles (location of Office of Community Services), appeared before the Police Jury and stated that to date, the Corps had hauled 2.6 million cubic yards of debris. He pointed out that the estimated amount to be removed was 5.3 million cubic yards. Mr. Groves advised that this estimate was based on computer models from other disasters and did not include damaged carpet, shingles, and furniture.

            Mr. Groves stated that there were approximately 294 trucks being used for debris removal in Calcasieu Parish operating seven days a week, almost 12 hours a day. He further stated that there were several reduction sites and one burn site at Pine Shadows Golf Course and that debris removal would not take place on Thanksgiving Day but would continue thereafter.

            Mr. Groves advised that they were somewhere between the first and second passes and that the sub-contractor, Crowder Gulf, had established a call-in number for people to report the “hot spots” (478-9614) and/or areas that might have been missed. He acknowledged that there was debris that needed to be removed immediately, but he felt they were making good progress. Mr. Groves asked everyone to be patient, pointing out that as more and more people returned home, there was more debris being placed out for pick-up. He stated that the Corps should be finished with this mission by the end of December or the first week in January of 2006.

            In answer to a question by Mrs. Griffin, Mr. Groves explained that “hot spots” were locations that impeded traffic or driveways and were being targeted as a result of specific requests/notification. Mr. Groves added that he had been talking to just about everybody in Parish government, and that was the way he liked it. He stated that Mr. Gary Love, FEMA Branch Manager of debris, and Mr. Rick West of FEMA, were also present to answer any questions.

            Mr. Manuel pointed out that the north end of North Perkins Ferry Road in Ward One needed attention, and Mr. Groves encouraged the jurors to report those kinds of problems to them.

            Mrs. Treme asked that there be more communication and coordination between the contractor, the jurors, and the staff as to scheduling of work. She pointed out that the jurors and staff kept getting calls from the public as to when and where the contractor would be working, and they had no information to give them. Mrs. Treme stated that she had a list of 200 roads that did not get the first pass, and she thought the same was true in the Moss Bluff and Iowa areas. She also stated that if the Corps was almost 50% complete with the work, she could not see it.

            Mr. Buddy Young, General Manager of Crowder Gulf (sub-contractor for the project), 5037 Oak Bend, Denton, Texas, appeared before the Police Jury at this time.

            Mr. Landry spoke of a situation in his district and showed a picture of an entire brick house that had been in a ditch on Helms Road in south Lake Charles for two months. He stated that evidently the Corps had given the owner permission to put it there but that other people had added to the pile of debris, and he was receiving complaints and questions about when it would be picked up, the answer to which he did not know. Mr. Landry pointed out that it was causing drainage problems, and he asked if he could meet with somebody from Crowder Gulf to get an update on where they had been in his district.

            Mr. Young stated that he would look at the situation described by Mr. Landry and advised that his company had multiple trucks working in almost every area of the Parish and City of Lake Charles. Mr. Young advised that they were trying to cover an entire area before moving to another but when they were notified of a specific problem area, they assigned a truck and tried to get it cleaned up as soon as possible.

            Mr. Young reminded the jurors and public that the debris removal from Hurricane Rita was a monumental task. He stated that in the past, he had been a FEMA Regional Director and that he had never seen as much debris in such a small area as he had in the local area. Mr. Young further stated that Calcasieu had been hit by a major storm and had major problems with debris. He pointed out that it was not “magic” in getting it removed, and his company was working 12 to 14 hours a day, trying to get it all picked up as fast as they could.

            Mr. Young advised that the amount of traffic was tremendous, and the trucks were difficult to maneuver. He also advised that in some cases they were having to block roads, and the public was complaining about that. Mr. Young stated that there had been a couple of accidents involving motorists who had not obeyed the workers flagging traffic.

            Mr. Young encouraged the jurors to notify Crowder Gulf of particular problems so those could be cleared up. He stated that his company was adding trucks every day to the job and currently had almost 300 trucks working to remove the debris. Mr. Young pointed out this had to be handled carefully with the haulers, because if there was not enough work in an area, the haulers would go elsewhere since it was a volume-based business, and they were paid by the number of cubic yards they hauled.

            Mr. Young advised that some of the best equipment and most experienced workers he had ever seen were being utilized on the Parish’s clean-up.

            The hour being 6:00 p.m., President McMillin advised that action had been advertised in accordance with law to be taken at this time but that discussion on the floor would continue, and 6:00 action would be taken up after that.

            Mr. Landry asked if there was somebody with Crowder Gulf who could meet with the individual jurors to show them on a map the activity in their district so they could answer the public’s questions. Mr. Young stated he had a map with him and would be glad to do that after the meeting and in answer to another question by Mr. Landry, he stated that he could provide a two-week update in the future.

            Mr. Clement stated that he had heard the Corps would make three passes and asked if that was for all types of debris, i.e., vegetative, white goods, etc. Mr. Young stated that they would continue to make passes until the job was significantly complete and that there would be a cut-off date established in conjunction with FEMA and the Police Jury for the final pass.

            President McMillin asked that a “last call” be given for the final pass by the contractor so that the public could be notified.

            Mr. Clement asked if the money would be pulled away from the project before it was completely done, and Mr. Gary Love, FEMA Regional Manager, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that it would be fully funded at 100% until it was complete as long as it was being contracted with the Corps, even if that took until March of 2006.

            President McMillin asked that Mr. Love’s statement be provided in writing to the Police Jury.

            Mr. Stelly asked if the smaller branches would be picked up, as compared to the taller timber and stumps, to which Mr. Groves responded that if the mechanized equipment could reach it, it would be picked up, however, there would be no raking or that kind of thing. Mr. Stelly asked at what point the property owner would be responsible for getting items out of the right-of-way, and Mr. Groves stated that although most of the debris would be picked up under the contract, the contractor was not equipped to do hand work, and there would be smaller items that would be the responsibility of the property owner.

            Mr. Stelly pointed out that many people were experiencing delays in meeting with insurance adjusters before tearing down houses, and there was a backlog of roofing requests, and he asked what would become of this debris after the contract with the Corps was completed. Mr. Love stated that the contractor would stay until a lot of that was picked up. Mr. Groves pointed out that demolition debris was not eligible under FEMA guidelines and that the roofing companies should be hauling old roofing material to the landfill, not placing it in the right-of-way for collection under the Corps contract.

            Mr. Stelly asked that the public be informed of this matter, and Mr. McMurry suggested a special request to the news media present at the meeting on this date to report that, as well as a news release on the Parish’s part.

            Mr. Andrepont asked how the dispatching of trucks in particular areas was handled, referring to his neighborhood where debris had been picked up on two streets, after which the haulers left the area and did not come back. Mr. Young stated that there had been 12 or 13 trucks, and now there were 20, working in the City of Sulphur picking up approximately 12,000 cubic yards per day. He stated that they would be back to Mr. Andrepont’s area sooner or later and assured the jurors that all of the debris would be removed from the Parish. Mr. Young pointed out that some of the debris was not reachable from the roadway, and they could only clean up what they could reach due to the fact that they could not go on private property.

            Mr. Andrepont stated that he felt if Crowder Gulf did not have a designated plan, the haulers would pick up only the “easy stuff”, and Mr. Young stated that while he could not deny that might be happening, the haulers were required to pick up everything they could before they left an area. He further stated that his company withheld 10% of their pay until that was done.

            Mr. Manuel asked why the contractor was not picking up bags of leaves and yard waste. Mr. Young explained that it was very hard to pick up the bags with the hooks on the equipment and that by law, those had to go to the landfill due to the fact that it was impossible to tell what was in them without ripping them open which the contractor could not take time to do, nor could the bags be burned. He recommended that leaves and similar type debris be stacked with the tree limbs and stumps for pick-up. Mr. Young added that if FEMA and the Corps would allow them to pick up bags, they could do that, but it was his understanding that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality would not allow them to pick them up.

            Mr. Manuel stated that the public needed to know what the problem was, because there were piles of bags everywhere, and he asked how the situation could be addressed. Mr. Young stated that his company would pick the bags up with the construction and demolition debris, with the permission of the Corps and FEMA. He pointed out that the City of Lake Charles had hired someone to pick up the bags in the city limits. Mr. Larry West of FEMA stated that as long as the debris was storm-related, FEMA would allow them to be picked up, and that FEMA was paying for the pickup of the bags in the City of Lake Charles.

            In answer to a question by Mr. Moon, Mr. Young explained that Waste Management had its own criteria on what they would pick up under their contract with the Police Jury, and that Crowder Gulf and Waste Management were not working together under the Corps contract for debris removal. He pointed out that Waste Management could pick up the bags if that was included in their contract.

            President McMillin advised that Waste Management was overwhelmed at the current time, and it would be very much appreciated if FEMA would allow Crowder Gulf to pick up the bags.

            Mr. Danahay stated that he had observed instances where developers were taking this opportunity to clear cut their land so that the debris could be removed by the Corps. Mr. Groves stated that this was not part of the contractor’s responsibility but was very difficult to identify. He further stated that they did not want to slow down the overall mission, but they were trying to make sure taxpayers’ money was being used in the manner in which it was intended to be used.

            Mr. Love stated that he had approximately ten or twelve monitors in the four parishes over which he had responsibility who were catching situations such as the one just discussed. He further stated that it was not eligible debris and when they found someone doing this, the monitors documented the number of cubic yards involved, and it would be deducted from the total to be paid by FEMA to the applicable parish. Mr. Love stated that as a taxpayer, he would love to have 100 of these monitors in every parish, but unfortunately he did not.

            Mr. Young advised that the FEMA programs were not designed to make a community whole again but were designed to get past health and safety issues. He further advised that the programs were not designed to groom people’s yards and pick up everything they had ever owned.

            In answer to a question by Mr. Collins, Mr. Young stated that Crowder Gulf took responsibility and liability for any damage they did, for example, they had already fixed several cracked driveways, but they had to know that the damage was specifically caused by their trucks. Mr. Young explained that each truck had a number on it, and if one of their trucks caused property damage, he had to know which truck (by number) had done it. He pointed out that some people would take advantage of that situation, and he said it amazed him how much people could complain, however, if his company did major damage and knew it was their fault, they would fix it.

            Mrs. Eason asked if a list was being kept of the contractors who were found clear cutting their properties with the intent of having the debris removed under the Corps’ contract so that the Parish could consider billing the homeowners to recoup that expense, and Mr. Love stated that he would have the names and addresses for the Police Jury.

            Mr. Clement observed that there were a lot of mobile homes damaged in the storm, and people were asking him if those could be moved to the right-of-way for pickup. Mr. Love stated that FEMA did not want to set a precedent and did not encourage people to do that, however, they would pick up the ones that had already been placed by the roadside for collection.

            Mr. Clement pointed out that many people who had mobile homes might not have money or insurance to clean up their property, and the Police Jury would have to address this matter sooner or later. Mr. McMurry pointed out that it might have to be handled through the condemnation and/or junk ordinance, the cost of which would ultimately become a part of the property’s tax bill if not paid when billed.

            Mr. McMurry asked Mr. Love to send him the tickets or records of those locations where clear cutting had taken place and had not been paid for by FEMA. He also asked Mr. Love if he had understood him to say that the City of Lake Charles had entered into a separate contract for picking up bags of debris, for which FEMA would pay the costs. Mr. Love stated that the Corps and Crowder Gulf had agreed to do that. Mr. McMurry asked if that was open to other entities, and Mr. Love stated that question would need to be answered by Mr. Young and Mr. Groves. He further stated that FEMA was “fine with it” but that when a parish contracted with the Corps for cleanup, FEMA usually left such matters to the Corps and their contractors.

            In answer to Mr. McMurry’s question, Mr. Young stated that the Parish’s situation was different than the City of Lake Charles’ and that the contract the City had for grooming work had caused problems immediately because instead of bringing in smaller equipment, the contractors had brought in heavy equipment. Mr. Young advised that the contract had been terminated, and he would object to having somebody coming in on top of his company because of the conflicts.

            Mr. Groves stated that Mayor Randy Roach’s intent had been to have a company come in and groom with hand labor and smaller equipment than Crowder Gulf’s, and the Corps felt like it would be an appropriate fit, but it had caused a huge conflict. Mr. Groves further stated that he was not sure of the added benefit of trying to do this on Parish roads, to which Mr. McMurry responded that there were some subdivisions in the Parish that were equivalent to residential areas in the City, and Mr. Groves advised that he would talk more about this later with Mr. McMurry.

            Mr. Love stated that while FEMA had agreed to do this, once the contractors brought in heavy equipment, it changed the scope of everything, and he had been prepared to tell the City that FEMA would not pay for that kind of work. Mr. Love stated that it would be more trouble than it was worth, and he encouraged the jurors to be patient because the Corps and Crowder Gulf were doing a great job, but that the debris was of such magnitude, clean-up would not happen overnight.

            Mr. McMurry stated that he felt FEMA could appreciate the delimma created by different standards being applied, and he had not known of the ability to have a second contract to do a final level of cleanup. Mr. Love stated that if they had it to do over, it probably would not have been made available.

            Mr. McMurry stated that the piles of debris in the Parish were huge and that the gap in communication had made it difficult for that understanding to be as widespread as it needed to be. He asked for a commitment on the part of Mr. Groves and Mr. Young to meet with Mr. Claude Smart and Mr. Allen Wainwright, Parish Engineer and Public Works Engineer respectively, maybe on a daily basis, to update the map of the Parish so the staff would be aware of where the contractor would be working and where they planned to go next. Mr. McMurry stated that this would do wonders to stop the confusion in that the staff could communicate information to the jurors and by doing this, it would solve a lot of the problems the jurors and staff were having and would also solve some of the complaints against the contractor.

            Mr. Groves suggested having meetings on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays with Mr. Smart and Mr. Wainwright.

            Mr. Guidry asked what percentage of Crowder Gulf’s workforce included local people, and Mr. Young stated he did not have the statistics, but there were several local contractors currently hauling for his company. He further stated that some had signed on but quit, pointing out that if someone did not have the right kind of equipment or knowledge of how to do the work, they could not make money or get the work done.

            Mr. Manuel asked if there was something that could be worked out to assist the elderly and/or handicapped persons who could not physically get the debris to the right-of-way. Mr. Groves advised that unfortunately there was not, because by law the Corps could not do work on private property. He suggested using the VOA’S Organization of Louisiana which had been doing work in several other parishes utilizing volunteers from schools and churches.

            Mr. Smart stated that he felt communication was the key to solving some of the problems being encountered, for example, he thought the public was supposed to put old shingles out by the roadside for pick-up. Mr. Groves stated that they were, but not whole roofs. Mr. Smart stated that there were issues such as this that the contractor might know about but the homeowners did not and needed to be made aware of.

            President McMillin asked for an update on removal of debris which had been stacked at Prien Lake Park. Mr. Young stated that he had not known until recently that there was an urgency in getting this done but when he found out, he assigned trucks to the site. He pointed out there were some issues to resolve before the rest of the debris could be moved but that they would get the rest of it out of the park as quickly as possible.

            Mr. Groves stated that by design, they had not put a priority on that, feeling that keeping the trucks on the road was a higher priority. He admitted that if Mr. Smart and he had it to do over, they would never have put the debris at the park to begin with, but “hindsight was 20-20".

            President McMillin stated that one of the concerns in leaving the debris at the park was spontaneous combustion, and the quicker it could be moved, the better, as far as he was concerned.

            Mr. Stelly stated that another “hot spot” was the old Ward Three barn site on Smith Road off of Highway 14, and he asked about the status of that project. Mr. Young stated that he had not been told that was a priority, but if it was, they would take care of it quickly. Mr. Stelly asked Mr. Young to let Mr. Smart or Mr. Wainwright know when they could get to it.

            Motion was made by Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Mr. Landry and carried unanimously to accept the report given on this date by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers relative to debris removal in Calcasieu Parish.

            President McMillin advised that a public hearing would be held at this time, as advertised in accordance with law for action to be taken at 6:00 p.m., to consider adopting the latest editions of the International Building Code, International Residential Code, International Mechanical Code, and International Gas Code, and further, to establish a Parish Building Inspection Program which would apply to all unincorporated areas of Calcasieu Parish.

            Mr. Vickers advised that on November 4, 2004, the Police Jury had authorized then-President Clement to appoint an ad hoc committee to study this issue, and Mr. Clement had appointed the following persons to serve on said committee: Mr. C. Gayle Zembower, AIA, of C. Gayle Zembower Architect, Inc., Mr. Frank Miller of F. Miller and Sons, LLC, Mr. Howard Amy of Amy’s Custom Trim, LLC, Mr. Randy Tupper, President of the Home Builders Association of Southwest Louisiana, and Mr. Lee Lancon of Lancon Engineers, Inc.

            Mr. Vickers further advised that numerous meetings had been held, many of which were attended by some of the police jurors. Mr. Vickers pointed out that the ad hoc committee had come up with the recommendation for which the public hearing was being held, the purpose of which was to receive input from the citizens. Mr. Vickers advised that the State Legislature was currently considering the adoption of a statewide code, and there might be some differences between parishes with regard to such issues as wind velocity, etc.

            President McMillin asked if anyone was present in the audience to provide input on these matters and hearing no comments, motion was made Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Mrs. Griffin and carried unanimously to close the public hearing.

            Motion was made by Mr. Landry and seconded by Mr. Manuel that revised provisions be approved and that a Joint Services Agreement be authorized between the Police Jury and the City of Lake Charles, in accordance with the authority granted under LSA—R.S. 33:140.210 et seq, providing for the consolidation of the Parish Planning and Zoning Board and the City Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustment, as recommended by the citizens Joint Planning Commission Task Force formed by both entities to study the concept. (A proposed Joint Services Agreement for this purpose was previously considered by the Police Jury on September 1, 2005, and was rejected by an 8 - 7 vote as follows: Yeas – Mr. Andrepont, Mrs. Eason, Mr. Landry, Dr. Mackey, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Moon, and Mrs. Treme. Nays – Mr. Clement, Mr. Collins, Mr. Danahay, Mrs. Griffin, Mr. Guidry, Mr. Guillory, Mr. Stelly, and President McMillin. On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, the Police Jury deferred action on this item until November 3, 2005, and on November 3, 2005, deferred action until November 17, 2005.)

            Mrs. Griffin requested a roll call vote on the motion following discussion.

            Mr. Charlie Atherton, 122 Vine Street, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that he did not feel the public completely understood this issue. He further stated that he had asked for a copy of the initial report and recommendations from the task force appointed to study this matter but had not received anything. Mr. Atherton urged the jurors not to vote for this just to “get it off the agenda”, and he asked them to understand the need for what he felt was another level of bureaucracy.

            Mr. Atherton also asked that the purpose of the proposal be written out and fully understood and that with the previous 8 - 7 vote by the Jury against the concept, it did not send a good message to the public. He stated that if the jurors did not fully understand it, they should not vote for it.

            Mr. Atherton advised that persons in west Calcasieu Parish were at a loss, and it seemed to him that the City of Lake Charles would like the unincorporated areas to build to the City’s standards so that when they annexed different areas, they would not be spending any money on infrastructure. He suggested that if the motion on the floor did pass, that the Police Jury do something to require that the City not annex any more land, due to his concern about a shrinking tax base in the unincorporated area and at a minimum, he asked that the Police Jury on this date put an item on the agenda for a future meeting to make sure the concept was working or needed tweaking, etc.

            Mr. Manuel stated that for economic development, it was important to have a uniform code so that everyone would know what to expect when they wanted to develop businesses or build homes in the Parish or City of Lake Charles. He pointed out that the Police Jury would still have final approval of zoning requests in the unincorporated areas, and the City of Lake Charles would continue to have the same final approval within its city limits.

            Mr. Vickers stated that this was correct and the only real changes would occur when a uniform code and master plan were developed, both of which would be two major functions of the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC). Mr. Vickers pointed out that there would be different standards for the more rural areas, just as there would be different standards for more urban areas, and any municipalities which joined in the effort would have the final approval of zoning requests within their communities.

            Mrs. Eason stated that she did not think the MPC would add a level of bureaucracy (as alluded to earlier by Mr. Atherton) but instead would remove it, because the two boards would be combined into one. She further stated that there would be no erosion of the tax base because that would not be changed. Mrs. Eason explained that under the MPC, the whole Parish would be working together for planned development. She spoke of the advancements made by the City of Lafayette and the City of Alexandria and stated that she did not like to see Calcasieu being left behind in the area of being progressive.

            Mrs. Eason reminded the jurors of how well everyone had worked together recently during a huge natural disaster (Hurricane Rita), and she felt that power needed to be tapped into.

            Mr. Andrepont stated that the previous 8-7 vote by the Police Jury against the MPC issue did not mean that the proposal was not a good one, and he pointed out that the changes he felt needed to be made had been made. Mr. Andrepont asked Mr. Vickers to put something in his files to give the Police Jury an update in the future on how the MPC was working, pointing out that the proposed agreement contained language that allowed the Police Jury to revert back to the current way of doing things if the MPC did not work out as planned.

            Mr. Clement asked if the proposal being discussed was the same as what was previously voted on by the Police Jury, and Mr. Landry explained that a change had been made to increase the number of members on the MPC.

            Mr. Landry then amended the motion on the floor, and Mr. Manuel (who seconded the original motion) accepted said amendment, to provide that there be thirteen members (instead of eleven as originally proposed) on the MPC, with eight members being appointed by the Police Jury and five by the City of Lake Charles.

            Mr. Clement stated that he did not think economic development was being deterred with the current planning system. He further stated that presently, the Police Jury had the authority to determine whether or not a member of the Planning and Zoning Board was reappointed which would not be the case with all of the appointments to the MPC.

            Mr. Clement also stated that he appreciated Mr. Landry having waited until he (Mr. Clement) recuperated from his appendectomy to bring this matter back up, but he could not support it. He pointed out that the increase to thirteen members made it a little more palatable, but he did not think it adequately accounted for the people who lived in the rural areas of the Parish.

            Mr. Stelly asked how this item had come back before the Police Jury so quickly, and Mr. McMurry explained that under Robert’s Rules of Order, an item could be brought back up with notice, and placing it on the agenda in advance of the meeting on this date was considered proper notice. Mr. McMurry further explained that a motion to reconsider an item could only be made during the meeting at which it was voted on, and further, could only be brought up by someone who had voted on the prevailing side. Mr. McMurry pointed out that once that session was adjourned, the matter could be brought back up by any member with advance notice.

            In answer to a question by Mr. Stelly, Mr. McMurry stated that one of the eight members of the MPC to be appointed by the Police Jury would very likely be someone from the Ward Three area.

            Mrs. Griffin stated that she would be more comfortable if the manner in which the seats would be distributed throughout the Parish had been addressed, pointing out that there were a lot of boards on which the Police Jury had oversight, and she was not comfortable with the distribution of some of the seats on said boards.

            Mr. Landry stated that he felt every area of the Parish could be represented with the eight members to be appointed by the Police Jury. He suggested that five be appointed from west of the Calcasieu River, one from south Ward Three, one from the Bell City/Hayes area, and one from the Moss Bluff area.

            Mr. Landry then amended his motion, and Mr. Manuel (as second of the original motion) accepted said amendment, to provide that of the Police Jury’s eight appointments on the MPC, that five be appointed from west of the Calcasieu River, one from south Ward Three, one from the Bell City/Hayes area, and one from the Moss Bluff area.

            Mr. McMurry advised that he did not think the assignment of seats should be made part of the proposed Joint Services Agreement and suggested that a separate motion be made to spell out the distribution of the Police Jury’s seats which could be acted on prior to voting on the main motion. Mr. McMurry also suggested that perhaps the main motion could be made subject to the Police Jury agreeing to an acceptable distribution of the seats.

            Mr. Allen Smith recommended that the Jury vote on the main motion first, pointing out that if it failed, there would be no need for further action to apportion the seats, but if it passed, another motion could be brought to the floor actually designating the distribution of the seats.

            Following a brief discussion on parliamentary procedure, Mr. Landry withdrew his previous amendment which provided that of the Police Jury’s eight appointments on the MPC, five would be appointed from west of the Calcasieu River, one from south Ward Three, one from the Bell City/Hayes area, and one from the Moss Bluff area. He then offered another amendment, which was accepted by Mr. Manuel (who seconded the original motion), to provide that the motion be subject to the members of the Police Jury agreeing on an acceptable distribution of its eight seats on the MPC.

            Mrs. Griffin stated that the jurors needed to have the method of apportionment of the seats in writing so that there would be no guesswork when it came time to make the appointments.

            With regard to comments made earlier in the meeting, Mr. Landry took issue with Mr. Atherton’s request for the jurors to not vote on this issue just to “get it off the agenda”. Mr. Landry stated that the members of the Police Jury did not cast their votes in this manner, and he did not appreciate the accusation that they did. Mr. Landry also stated that neither the Parish or the City of Lake Charles could succeed without a plan, and he felt the creation of a MPC was a step in the right direction in formulating a plan for working together.

            Mr. Danahay stated that he felt metropolitan planning was a very innovative and bold concept which had worked well in many areas across the country. He further stated that his concerns had been about representation, and that had been addressed. Mr. Danahay closed by saying that he felt the Jury should approve the joint services agreement and designate the representation on this date, if possible.

            Dr. Mackey stated that he supported metropolitan planning and felt it would be good for all of Calcasieu Parish.

            In answer to a question by Mr. Clement, Mr. Vickers advised that the City of Lake Charles’ planning staff currently consisted of a part-time employee who served as a planner, along with two or three support staff employees, and code enforcement personnel.

            Mr. Clement asked if that was adequate to run a city the size of Lake Charles, and Mr. Vickers stated that was a political decision. He pointed out that at one time, the City did have a bigger planning department but that some responsibilities had been spread to other departments, i.e., economic development.

            Mr. Clement stated that he thought the underlying factor behind this was that the City had not allocated the basic resources but now was expecting the Parish to “bail them out” or help them. He further stated that his main responsibility was to the people in the unincorporated areas of the Parish and the district he represented.

            Mr. Landry stated that the City had the finances to do whatever it chose to do and would be paying for whatever they received through metropolitan planning.

            Mr. Gayle Zembower, 1401 Hillcroft Street, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury and spoke in favor of metropolitan planning, pointing out that as an architect, he performed work both inside and outside of the city limits, and many times professionals did not know to whom they should go for permits, approvals, etc., nor what the overall master plan was for development of the Parish. Mr. Zembower stated that a master plan was needed to address the “what if’s” in the future.

            Mr. Stelly stated that his original concerns had been that representation on the proposed commission was not diversified enough because his district was not represented, and further, that the representatives of the rural areas had not been included from the very beginning in discussions about metropolitan planning.

            A vote was then taken on the motion on the floor as amended, which was that revised provisions be approved and that a Joint Services Agreement be authorized between the Police Jury and the City of Lake Charles, in accordance with the authority granted under LSA—R.S. 33:140.210 et seq, providing for the consolidation of the Parish Planning and Zoning Board and the City Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustment, as recommended by the citizens Joint Planning Commission Task Force formed by both entities to study the concept, and further, that there be thirteen members (instead of eleven as originally proposed) on the MPC, with eight members being appointed by the Police Jury and five by the City of Lake Charles, and finally, that approval of the motion as amended be subject to the members of the Police Jury agreeing on an acceptable distribution of its eight seats on the MPC.

            The vote thereon was as follows:

YEAS:Mr. Andrepont, Mr. Danahay, Mrs. Eason, Mr. Landry, Dr. Mackey, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Moon, and Mrs. Treme

NAYS:Mr. Clement, Mr. Collins, Mrs. Griffin, Mr. Guidry, Mr. Guillory, and Mr. Stelly

ABSENT:None

NOT VOTING:President McMillin

            The vote being eight (for) to six (against) the motion, President McMillin declared the motion as having carried; whereupon, the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLUTION

            WHEREAS, Act No. 1168 of the 2003 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature (LSA—R. S. 33:140.210 through 140.207) provides that the governing authority of Calcasieu Parish and one or more governing authorities of any municipality within Calcasieu Parish may enter into a Joint Services Agreement to provide for the creation, organization, powers, and duties of a metropolitan planning commission; and

            WHEREAS, an eleven (11) member Joint Planning Commission Task Force, comprised of citizens appointed by the City of Lake Charles (“City”) and the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury (“Parish” and/or “Police Jury”), was established to study the feasibility of a metropolitan planning commission (“MPC”); and

            WHEREAS, the Task Force held a series of meetings wherein they considered input from the staff and legal counsels of both the City and the Parish, along with comments from the general public, and found it beneficial to improving the planning and development services of the City and the Parish by consolidating the existing planning and zoning commissions; and

            WHEREAS, the Police Jury desires to consolidate such functions and programs that will provide order and guide coordinated and harmonious development of the City and the unincorporated area of the Parish, as well as other municipalities which may ultimately join in this effort, which will best promote public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development.

            NOW, THEREFORE,

        BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, in Regular Session convened on the 17^th day of November, 2005, that upon execution by the Police Jury and the City of a Joint Services Agreement for such purpose, a Calcasieu Parish Metropolitan Planning Commission shall be created and established as authorized by LSA—R.S. 33:140.210 through 140.207.

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in order to effectively provide for the implementation of a metropolitan planning commission, the Joint Services Agreement creating such commission shall include, but not be limited to, provisions whereby (1) the Director of Parish Planning and Development shall serve as ex-officio Executive Director to the MPC, (2) the Calcasieu Parish Planning and Zoning Board, and the City of Lake Charles’ Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustments, will become a single planning and zoning commission/board serving both the City and the Parish, and (3) the MPC shall consist of thirteen (13) members, eight (8) of which shall be appointed by the Police Jury and five (5) by the City.

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of the fully executed Joint Services Agreement between the City and the Parish creating the consolidated planning commission or MPC shall be attached to this resolution and made a part hereof.

            BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED that the President of the Police Jury, or his designee, when appropriate, is authorized to execute all documents related thereto.

            THUS PASSED AND ADOPTED by the following vote on this, the 17^th day of November, 2005:

YEAS:Mr. Francis Andrepont, Mr. Mike Danahay, Mrs. Mary Kaye Eason, Mr. Chris Landry, Dr. Charles S. Mackey, Mr. Don Manuel, Mr. Cornie Moon, and Mrs. Sandy Treme

NAYS:Mr. Brent Clement, Mr. Calvin Collins, Mrs. Elizabeth Conway Griffin, Mr. Kevin Guidry, Mr. Tony Guillory, and Mr. Tony Stelly

ABSENT:None

NOT VOTING:President Hal McMillin

                                                                                                /s/ Hal McMillin, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Parish Administrator &

Ex-Officio Parish Secretary

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

            President McMillin declared a five-minute recess. Following the recess, President McMillin called the meeting back to order, and motion was made by Mr. Danahay, seconded by Mr. Clement and carried unanimously that the following resolution be adopted:

RESOLUTION

             BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, in regular session convened on the 17^th day of November, 2005, that it does hereby approve the following designation of Police Jury appointments for membership on the Calcasieu Parish Metropolitan Planning Commission, the creation of which is subject to the execution of a Joint Services Agreement between the Police Jury and the City of Lake Charles for such purpose:

                        Ward One                                                        1 member

                        Wards Two and Eight                                      1 member

                        Ward Three                                                     1 member

                        Ward Four                                                       3 members

                        Wards Five and Six                                         1 member

                        Ward Seven                                                     1 member

            THUS DONE AND PASSED on the date above inscribed.

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

            President McMillin advised that a report would be received at this time from Mr. Matt France, General Manager of CommuniComm with reference to various complaints and concerns received relative to said company’s cable television recovery operations.

            Mr. Beam explained that the Police Jury held several cable television franchises in the Parish and that since Hurricane Rita, numerous complaints had been lodged by CommuniComm subscribers. Mr. Beam advised that CommuniComm served the unincorporated areas of Moss Bluff, Westlake, DeQuincy, Vinton, and Old Town Road, and the complaints involved: (1) restoration of service after the hurricane and while other cable companies had service restored by October 28, 2006, CommuniComm had still not restored service to all areas of its franchise; (2) communication problems with the company’s office in Westlake whereby people could not get through to them by telephone, as well as claims that telephone operators were rude or not knowledgeable; and (3) billing problems and credits for service not received.

            Mr. Matt France, General Manager of CommuniComm, 2504 Westwood Road, Westlake, then appeared before the Police Jury and advised that his company had never experienced anything on the scale of Hurricane Rita. He further advised that CommuniComm was not as big of a company as some of the others in the Parish, and the challenges associated with the storm were new to them.

            Mr. France stated that from “day one”, there were people on the ground working, and the office had opened back up on October 6, 2005, as soon as enough employees had returned home, many of whom were dealing with destroyed homes and other personal problems. Mr. France estimated that 25-30% of CommuniComm’s facilities had been repaired, and it was the company’s goal to get all services restored as soon as possible because money was being lost with each customer still without service.

            Mr. Manuel stated that he had received many calls from constituents, and not being able to get through to them by telephone, he had gone to CommuniComm’s office, only to find the doors locked. Mr. Manuel also stated that he had seen very few CommuniComm repair trucks in the Moss Bluff area, and many of his constituents were planning to buy satellite dishes because of the disruption in cable service. He stated that when a company was not providing the service it was supposed to, credits should be given to the customers not receiving the service, and they were entitled to receive answers to their questions.

            Mr. France advised that prior to Hurricane Rita, the office received approximately 125 telephone calls per day, with 3000 walk-in customers per month, and now they were receiving approximately 750 telephone calls and 5000 walk-in customers. Mr. France stated that CommuniComm had hired an answering service to mitigate the overload in incoming calls, but account information was not available to the service because of privacy reasons, so they were unable in many cases to adequately answer questions from the public. Mr. France advised that CommuniComm’s future plans included improvements in their telephone system, as well as a disaster plan to respond faster, and he pointed out that anyone who had experienced loss of service would receive a credit on their bill.

            Mr. Manuel suggested that CommuniComm should be more visible in the community, and Mr. France stated that they had 27 contract bucket trucks and boom trailers. He pointed out that not only did CommuniComm provide service in parts of Calcasieu Parish but also in Kinder, Gueydan, Newton, Kirbyville, etc., and he invited the jurors to come by the office any time to see the work the crews were doing.

            Mrs. Treme spoke of her difficulties in trying to reach the company in response to the many calls she had received from her constituents. She stated that a utility company such as CommuniComm should have had an emergency plan in the event of a catastrophe and being a communications company, it should have performed better in the area of communicating with its customers and public. Mrs. Treme stated that the franchise with CommuniComm should address some of the problems encountered after Hurricane Rita, and she did not understand why the company did not have the materials on hand to fix the problems.

            Mr. France stated that CommuniComm was just not big enough of a company to have the capability of having enough materials – and the right kind of materials – stockpiled. He also stated that the availability of materials had been “squeezed” because of Hurricane Katrina.

            In answer to a question by Dr. Mackey, Mr. France stated that all CommuniComm customers would get a six-week credit on their bill and if they were out of service longer than that, they would receive additional credit. He pointed out that if someone was out of service for just two weeks, they would still receive a six-week credit.

            President McMillin stated that CommuniComm’s crews were working hard to get service restored, and he felt the office staff had been very professional and did a great job. He also stated that Mr. France had done everything in his power to fix the problems, and CommuniComm wanted to get all of its service to its customers fully restored.

            Mr. Beam advised that Mr. France was fairly new in his position as General Manager, and his experience in working with Mr. France had been a good one. He further advised that the parish staff would communicate with the corporate office of CommuniConmm and relay the problems being faced by local customers.

            It was moved by Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Dr. Mackey and carried unanimously to receive the report as presented by Mr. Matt France, General Manager of CommuniComm, on this date.

            President McMillin advised that action was needed on RZ03-041-05 which was a request by Alan C. Perry to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to C-1 (Light Commercial) to allow an orthodontist office at the corner of Knight Lane and Prien Lake Road in Ward Three, Police Jury District 8 (Mrs. Eason’s district). President McMillin further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, 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 must be hardsurfaced (concrete or asphalt); and (3) that an enclosed dumpster must be provided prior to issuance of an occupational license.

            Motion was made by Dr. Mackey, seconded by Mr. Moon and carried unanimously that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld with respect to RZ03-041-05 and that the request to rezone be granted with the stipulations outlined by said Board; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4986

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Alan C. Perry to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to C-1 (Light Commercial) to allow an orthodontist office on the property described as: Com at the NW cor of the E/2 of the SE/4 of NE/4 of S14, T10S, R9W, Louisiana Meridian, thence running E 165 feet, thence S 259 feet, thence W 165 feet, thence N 259 feet to poc, together with all buildings and improvements situated thereon, subject to an existing right of way for a public road in the N 30 feet of said tract.

            BE IT ORDAINED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in regular session on the 17^th day of November, 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 Three of this parish:

From R-1 (Single Family Residential) to C-1 (Light Commercial) to allow an orthodontist office 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 hardsurfaced (concrete or asphalt); and 3) that an enclosed dumpster must be provided prior to issuance of an occupational license, on the property described as: Com at the NW cor of the E/2 of the SE/4 of NE/4 of S14, T10S, R9W, Louisiana Meridian, thence running E 165 feet, thence S 259 feet, thence W 165 feet, thence N 259 feet to poc, together with all buildings and improvements situated thereon, subject to an existing right of way for a public road in the N 30 feet of said tract.

Zoning Case RZ03-041-05

            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.