LAPLACE — A simmering feud involving St. John the Baptist Parish’s highest-ranking officials played out before the public eye this week during the Parish Council’s finance committee meeting.

Sparking the flare-up with Parish President Natalie Robottom and District Attorney Bridget Dinvaut was a recurring and contentious issue dating to the spring. For the past several months, Robottom, as well as staff members behind the scenes, have been urging Council members to approve amending the cooperative endeavor agreement involving the parish and the South Central Planning and Development Commission.

In a major policy shift, South Central Planning is asking the parish to pay in advance a monthly fee, or “pro-rata share,” of $27,530.14 to maintain its services. The current contract allows South Central to keep 80 percent of the revenue generated through building permits and the parish 20 percent.

Robottom maintains the increase is necessary because the 10-year, $1.8 million grant that was initially awarded by the federal government in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is expiring. South Central Planning, which serves seven parishes in southeast Louisiana, says its services includes “long-range planning, state and federal liaison, current issues, membership services and services to business and citizens.”

The monthly charge would come on top of the $4,000 annual membership fee the parish pays to belong to South Central Planning, which provides a host of services to St. John. South Central Planning officials, who were not present at Tuesday’s Parish Council meeting, are insisting the fee is necessary to maintain operation.

However, the D.A.’s office has consistently questioned the proposal, both in a public setting as well as behind closed doors. In an opinion issued hours before this past Tuesday’s meeting, Dinvaut said she believes the new agreement is illegal on its face, because paying the $27,530.14 in advance amounts to a “gratuitous donation” of public funds, which is prohibited under the state constitution.

DONATION

As part of her presentation, Dinvaut explained “gratuitous donation” meant the donation of public funds must have a value of greater or equal benefit to the parish, which she remains skeptical will happen under the new agreement.

She also emphasized that same legal sentiment in her written opinion, which was obtained by L’OBSERVATEUR.

In the written opinion Dinvaut cited a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling that pitted the Industrial Development Board of the city of Gonzales against taxpayers, property owners and citizens of Gonzales. In its ruling, commonly known as Cabela because it involved the city issuing tax increment revenue bonds to effectuate a project resulting in the construction of Cabela’s Retail Center,  the court ruled there must “be reciprocal benefits and obligations between the private and public entities to ensure that there is not a gratuitous donation of public funds.”

Dinvaut wrote that since her office is “unaware of any other evidence the parish provided to support its reduced cost to their constituents and public benefit commensurate with the costs statement, as currently written, the contemplated CEA with SCPDC is prohibited in according with the Cabala analysis.”

“It seems like an illegal donation of parish funds,” Dinvaut told Council members, adding she believes the money is a way to fill the budget created by the grant ending. “Why are we going to spend this money? What are we going to get for it?”

The current contract runs through 2020 but either party can opt out with 30 days notice. The proposed contract is essentially for six years: Three years with an automatic three-year renewal.

BENEFITS

Planning and Zoning Director Alexandra Carter emphasized on several occasions that South Central has agreed to maintain the 80/20 arrangement until a new agreement can be reached.

Council members also expressed concern that the parish would still have to pay the monthly fee to South Central Planning even if no permits were issued during a particular month.

However, Carter quickly and passionately disputed that notion, explaining the parish receives numerous benefits in addition to the issuing of permits. In a document obtained by L’OBSERVATEUR, she outlined many of those services, beginning with software for permit review, issuance and inspection; code enforcement data and case file management and monitoring; and electronic file storage and retrieval.

She explained the MyPermitNow software tracks everything related to any application the parish takes in, not just permits that require building code review, including subdivisions, variances, historic district applications and many other circumstances.

Carter said the service is provided at no charge by South Central Planning.

Other services include accessibility to IT services for on-demand updates to system management, including building new components for the software system that are unique to St. John Parish. She noted that a pervious service provider charged $2,000 per month for the service, but is included in what the parish pays South Central Planning.

Some of the other services, but not all, included in the monthly fee are performing structural analysis for buildings to determine if they can be repaired or are in danger of imminent collapse, organizing and staffing quarterly meetings of the Code Construction Council to discuss updates and maintaining a common understanding of the building code, hearing appeals to the interpretation of the code, plan review and inspections to ensure compliance with the State Uniform Construction Code and maintaining a chief building official.

Carter also provided figures showing that under the proposed amended contract the parish will pay approximately $350,000 to South Central in 2018. During the council meeting, she noted that if the parish severs its relationship with SCPDC, as some members are championing, the tab to the parish to maintain the current services provided by South Central is estimated at $500,000.

“It’s important for you guys to have both sides,” Carter said. “This is not a gift. We are business partners (with South Central). We are actively using them every day and not assessed fees. (The monthly fee) is the true cost (of the services South Central provides).”

“I’m pleading with the council, please consider this,” she said, adding the parish is not set up to provide the scope of the current services on its own.

“Do not act out of haste.”

Robottom said neither her office nor South Central had an opportunity to adequately review Dinvaut’s opinion and asked the Council to table the matter until South Central Planning had the opportunity to respond. However, Dinvaut immediately objected, saying she has no interest in hearing what South Central has to say but would wait for the parish’s response.

She also charged Robottom’s office of not providing contracts in sufficient time for her office to review them before action is needed and even at one point told the parish president, “this is a personal issue.”

Several other allegations were launched, further evidence of a seemingly growing animosity splitting the two parish leaders.

Ultimately, the council voted to table the motion 6-2 with Councilmen Lennix Madere Jr. and Larry Snyder objecting.

— By Richard Meek