May 01, 2024 Parish Council West Bank

ITEM NUMBER TWO IS EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[PROFESSIONAL SERVICES]

ITEM NUMBER THREE IS AS WELL.

ITEM FOUR, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK.

SUMMARY NUMBER 2629 FOR RESALE.

PUBLIC FIVE AND SIX.

AKBAR PLANTATION SUBDIVISION WS1 4523, COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE.

WE CAN WAIVE THE READING ON THIS ITEM.

AND NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 2629.

FOR ANYONE IN FAVOR, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED.

COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, YOUR MOTION.

MOVE TO APPROVE. ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 2629 FOR A MOTION OF COUNCILMAN EDWARDS? SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

OH. I'M SORRY.

WHAT ARE WE DOING? MOVING ON.

OKAY. I GAVE A GOOD FIVE SECONDS OR SO.

[SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES]

NOBODY MOVED.

RAISE YOUR HAND IF.

GET MY ATTENTION. I'M SORRY.

YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION.

NOT REALLY. I'D JUST LIKE TO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.

I OWN THE ROAD.

IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD.

THE MAIN STREET FROM BARRETT.

WELL, IT'S FROM PROPERTY AND LAPPIN STREET.

I'M ON THE CORNER.

EVERYTHING GOES BACK, GOES THROUGH ME.

AND RIGHT NOW, THE ROAD IS BANK STREET HAS A BIG HOLE IN IT, AND I DON'T EVEN TAKE IT.

IT CUTS THROUGH MY YARD.

I GIVE UP MY 15FT OF PROPERTY TO PUT LAPINE STREET UP THROUGH THERE.

MR. CLARENCE.

I MEAN MR. CALVIN GUIDRY WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE HIS LOT IN THE BACK, WHICH IS NO PROBLEM.

BUT HE'S ALSO LOOKING FOR A SIX FOOT RIGHT OF WAY FOR A WATER ACCESS.

THERE'S WATER ACCESS THAT GOES BACK THERE ALREADY.

SO WHY SHOULD WE GIVE UP SIX FEET OF LAND TO HIM FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY? THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

ALREADY GIVE UP 15FT, I'LL GIVE UP ANOTHER SIX OR WHATEVER.

IT'S GOING TO BE 20FT.

20 SOMETHING FEET.

MY LIGHT'S ONLY 60FT WIDE, SO I LOSE ONE THIRD OF MY LAND JUST FOR HIM IN THE BACK WHEN THEY ALREADY GOT A

[00:35:01]

SERVITUDE. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND ANOTHER THING.

THE BLACKTOP ROAD GOES ON.

THE BACK IS NOT MARKED RIGHT.

LAPINE STREET GOES TO HIM.

IT DOESN'T GO TO WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.

IT GOES TO HIM.

AND WHEN HE PUT HIS MOBILE HOME BACK THERE.

WELL, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, A DOUBLE WIDE, MODULAR HOME.

HE PUT HIS HOUSE ON THE STREET.

HOW CAN YOU DO THAT? IF IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD, BUT YOU CAN'T STOP ANYBODY FROM GOING THROUGH IT.

SO HOW COULD YOU PUT YOUR HOUSE ON THE ROAD? CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? IF COUNCILMAN EDWARDS WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT, HE MAY.

BUT FIRST OF ALL, YOU DIDN'T TELL US WHO YOU WERE.

WHAT IS YOUR NAME? MY NAME IS TRAVIS FISH.

AND WHERE DO YOU LIVE? I LIVE ON THE CORNER OF LUPINE AND PRIVATEER.

OKAY. AND I EVERYBODY.

I LIVE ON THE CORNER, BUT I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE ROAD.

I GOT MY OWN DRIVEWAY.

NOW, FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS WATER SERVITUDE IS GOING TO BE.

SIX FEET.

WHO'S GOT TO GIVE THAT UP TO MAKE LIBERTY STREET? THE PEOPLE OWN THE HOUSE AND BUILT THE HOUSE BEFORE ME.

ALREADY GIVE UP A RIGHT OF WAY.

WELL, I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO WITH THIS, BUT IT'S A REQUEST FOR A WATER SERVITUDE, SO OBVIOUSLY THEY NEED TO SUPPLY WATER TO SOMEBODY BACK THERE.

OKAY? IT IS A SERVITUDE ALREADY BACK THERE.

WELL, I'M NOT SHOWING IT ON THIS, AND.

WELL, HOW COME HIS GRANDMOTHER AND HIM HAVE ALREADY HAS WATER? COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, I THINK I HAVE NO ANSWER.

THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS A COMMENT.

OKAY. HOW CAN YOU PUT A HOUSE ON BLACKTOP ROAD? HANG ON ONE SECOND, SIR.

WE'LL HEAR FROM PLANNING.

YOU SHOULD BE ON BEST.

THERE WE GO.

COUNCILMAN EDWARDS AS IT EXISTS CURRENTLY.

THE WATER FOR LOT 5D THE METER WOULD END UP ON LOT 5C, SO THE WATER DEPARTMENT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE METER BE MOVED ONTO LOT 5D, THE METER FOR 4948.

AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THE WATER DEPARTMENT NEEDS THAT SERVITUDE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE LINE THAT WILL BE EXTENDED.

THE SERVITUDE IS NOT PART OF LAPINE STREET AND IS SOLELY ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

WHAT ABOUT HIS STATEMENT THAT THERE'S A HOUSE BUILT ON THE ON THE STREET? I DON'T I'M NOT SEEING THAT.

WELL, HE GOT A DOUBLE MODULAR HOME.

I'M ASKING HER. OKAY.

THE STREET ESSENTIALLY DEAD ENDS ON THE PROPOSED LOT FIVE D.

IS THERE A HOUSE ON IT? THERE'S A HOUSE ON PROPOSED LOT 5D.

YES, SIR, BUT NOT EXACTLY THE STREET AS IT IS.

DEAD ENDS THERE BECAUSE THAT THE LAST.

THAT'S THE LAST PROPERTY ON THE ROAD.

OKAY. I JUST REALLY WANT TO KNOW IF HE'S GOING TO COME, IF HE GOES THROUGH HIS OWN PROPERTY WITH THE WATER SERVITUDE, THAT'S QUITE FINE.

BUT IF HE'S GOT TO COME THROUGH MY LAND, WHICH THE SERVITUDE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD, THE MAIN STREET, WHY SHOULD I GIVE HIM SIX FEET? WHY SHOULD MY NEIGHBORS GIVE HIM SIX FEET? IF THE SERVICE WAS ALREADY BAD, THEN THE SERVITUDE THAT'S SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, IT RUNS FROM LOT 5C WHERE THE WATER METER IS CURRENTLY TO LOT FIVE D WHERE THE WATER METER WILL BE RELOCATED.

THAT IS THE ONLY AREA THAT THE WATER SERVITUDE WILL COVER.

OKAY, IT DOES NOT KNOW I HAVE TO GIVE UP NO LAND AT ALL FOR HIS SERVITUDE.

THE SERVITUDE IS ONLY ON MR. GUIDRY'S PROPERTY.

OKAY, THAT'S QUITE FAR.

NOW I KNOW THE ONES BEHIND ME GOT A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS.

GOOD MORNING. I LIVE ON THE STREET.

I GOT THREE LOTS.

I LIVE STRAIGHT ACROSS FROM CALVIN GUIDRY.

HE'S TRYING TO MAKE THE ROAD PRIVATE.

IF HE DOES THAT, HE COULD TELL ME.

I CAN'T GO TO MY PROPERTIES.

NO MORE LANDLOCKED ME.

NOW TELL ME HOW THAT HOW THAT GONE.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. IT'S MR.

[00:40:01]

GUIDRY. YOUR NAME, PLEASE.

CLARENCE WISEMAN.

I LIVE ON 4945 LAPINE STREET.

YOU'RE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THIS MATTER HAS BEEN LITIGATED AND THAT IT'S BEEN DECLARED A PRIVATE ROAD.

THAT'S EXACTLY HOW THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT LIVES ON LAPINE STREET.

NOBODY. WE WASN'T TOLD NOTHING.

I GOT THREE LIGHTS BACK THERE.

I HAVE NO ANSWER. SOMETHING'S CROOKED ABOUT ALL THIS.

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT I WISH PEOPLE WOULD LOOK INTO IT.

SO, I'VE BEEN OUT 64 YEARS DOWN THERE.

SO, A GUY MOVES BY ME, AND HE CAN LANDLOCKED ME FOR THREE LOTS.

I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE AT THE OPINION OF THE OF THE JUDGE THAT TRIED THIS CASE, BUT THERE MAY BE ANSWERS IN THERE MAY NOT.

AND IF YOU'RE DISSATISFIED WITH IT, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO RELITIGATE IT AGAIN.

IS MR. GUIDRY HERE? I DON'T KNOW, MR. GUIDRY, I DO.

HE LIVES RIGHT NEXT TO ME, HERE TO THAT WALL.

NO IDEA. THANK YOU.

ONLY IN A MATTER OF.

MY NAME IS GREGORY MORIN.

YOU KNOW WHO I AM.

I'M SORRY. MR. COUNCIL EDWARDS AND I SPOKE WITH MISS I CAN'T PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME.

VAN VRANCKEN. AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET BACK TOGETHER WITH THIS BEFORE THIS MEETING RIGHT HERE WITH BOTH OF Y'ALL.

AND WE NEVER GOT A REPLY BACK BUT DOING SOME A LITTLE BIT OF INVESTIGATING MYSELF.

YOU'RE PRETTY FAMILIAR.

WHAT'S GOING ON BACK THERE? MR. GUIDRY, YOU KNOW HIM? I'M NOT GOING TO CALL YOU A LIAR OR WHATEVER, BUT YOU KNOW HIM.

AND IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON BACK THERE THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS.

HE WORKED FOR THE TOWN OF JEAN LAFITTE.

YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD. YES.

YOU KNOW THE MAN.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE JUST GETTING ENOUGH OF US.

WHAT'S GOING ON? AND I'M HOPING THAT Y'ALL POSTPONE THIS TO GET MORE INTO IT.

THERE WAS FEDERAL FUNDS.

THAT WAS I LOOKED OVER SOME OF THE PAPERWORK WAS GOING ON WITH THINGS.

EVERYTHING THAT WAS PUBLIC IS NOW PRIVATE.

IF THERE WAS A MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL ABOUT THAT RULE OF GOING TO PRIVATE, WE DIDN'T GET NO KIND OF CERTIFICATIONS IN THE MAIL.

WE DIDN'T GET NOTHING TO VERIFY THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING GOING ON ABOUT THIS.

AND THERE WAS A DISH THAT WAS CLOSED.

AND WE'LL GO OVER THE PAPERWORK THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THEY SEEN THE MAPS AND THE PICTURES OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

GOING TO THAT BUYER, MY UNCLE TRAVIS, HE SLIPPED WHEN HE'S ELDERLY.

BUT THEY SEEN THE MAPS.

I GIVE IT TO ALLISON. SHE MADE A COPY OF IT AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

SHE SAID SHE COULDN'T BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A TRAILER SITTING ON TOP OF THAT ROAD WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SITTING THERE.

AND THAT'S WHY I WAS TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH Y'ALL.

TO GET ALL THIS TO GET SETTLED.

SOMETHING'S GOING TO GET PASSED.

IN OTHER WORDS, LOOK IT.

I'M LOOKING LAST NIGHT AT THE PAPERWORK.

THERE'S A DITCH THAT WAS COVERED, OKAY, WITH HUD FUNDS.

WHEN I GET HOME TO SEE IF THIS PASSES AND THEY GO THROUGH MY FIRST PHONE CALL WHEN I GET OUT, IS THE HUD TO COME BACK AND REINVESTIGATE THIS? BECAUSE NOW IT'S PRIVATE.

THAT'S ALL OUR TAX DOLLARS.

EVERY ONE OF US IN HERE THAT PAID TO COVER THIS DITCH.

THE JUDGE, WHEN WE WAS IN COURT FOR THIS TOLD HIM, DO NOT COVER NONE OF US, NEITHER ONE, NEITHER PARTIES COVER THIS DITCH.

HE COVERED THIS DITCH.

HE'S EMPLOYED FOR THE TOWN OF LAFITTE.

HE DOES WHAT HE WANTS.

HE GETS WHAT HE WANTS.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN HE BLACKTOP THAT ROAD.

IN OTHER WORDS, I SAID, WELL, IF THIS IS GOING TO BE PRIVATE, I WANT TO CALL MY LAND BACK.

YOU STILL GOT YOUR RIGHT OF WAY TO PASS.

HE CALLED ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS YEARS AGO, FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND HE TURNED AROUND AND SAID IF IT WAS BLACKTOP, IT REMAINED BLACKTOP AND IT JUST IT JUST TOO MUCH GOING ON.

BUT IN OTHER WORDS, WE GOT ALL THE PAPERWORK PROVEN THAT THAT'S A GOVERNMENT DITCH, THAT FEDERAL DOLLARS, IT WAS LIKE 200 SOMETHING THOUSAND OR WHATEVER IT WAS TO DO ALL THIS WORK FOR FREE.

AND NOW IT'S PRIVATE.

IT'S WRONG. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS SEVERAL TIMES.

ME AND YOU, YOU KNOW ME. YOU KNOW ME PERSONALLY.

YOU CAME TO MY HOUSE.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S GOT TO STOP.

IN OTHER WORDS, USING GOVERNMENT MONEY FOR PURPOSES VIOLATES ARTICLE SEVEN, SECTION 14 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION OF 1974. IT WILL BE INVESTIGATED IF IT DON'T GET STOPPED.

I PROMISE YOU THAT.

I'M ASKING FOR Y'ALL.

I VOTED FOR YOU, MR. SCOTT WALKER. COUNCIL.

I'VE TALK TO YOU A COUPLE OF TIMES ON FACEBOOK.

AND I ALSO VOTED FOR YOU, AND I VOTED FOR CYNTHIA LEE BECAUSE I WANTED A CHANGE, BECAUSE THIS HAS TO STOP WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND I'M ASKING YOU, MARRERO, I LOVE YOU TO DEATH.

WHEN THE STORM CAME, LAFITTE BARATARIA WAS FLOODED.

I CALLED YOU AND TOLD YOU WHAT WAS GOING ON.

I VERIFIED EVERYTHING I TOLD YOU BECAUSE YOU WAS GETTING WRONG INFORMATION.

[00:45:01]

YOU REMEMBER THAT? AND I WAS TRYING TO HELP YOU.

I'M LEGAL. I'M LEGIT.

THEY [INAUDIBLE] ABOUT ME.

AND I'M ASKING FOR HELP TO STOP WHAT'S GOING ON THE STREET RIGHT HERE.

AND LET'S GET IT STRAIGHTENED OUT.

HE CAME TO ME THAT DAY, ASKED ME THAT I WAS TRYING.

JUST ME. HE COMES UP.

I HEARD THAT YOU WAS TRYING GOING TO JEFFERSON PARISH TO STOP THE HOUSE.

IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH STOPPING A HOUSE.

ALL THIS IS A MESS BACK THERE.

TRUST ME. IF YOU DIG INTO THE FILES.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S A MESS.

AND HE DOES WHAT HE WANTS.

WHATEVER HE DECIDES HE WANTS, HE'S GOING TO DO IT.

AND NOW I FEEL KIND OF WHAT WENT ON WITH THE LAST ELECTION AND STUFF.

IT KIND OF FLATTENED OUT WHERE HE DON'T HAVE THE POWER AND THE CONTROL THAT HE COULD DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, AND WHICH I'M GLAD THAT THINGS ARE STARTING TO CHANGE.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE EVERYBODY COULD BE TREATED FAIR.

AND I'M ASKING Y'ALL TO BE FAIR WITH US.

IN OTHER WORDS, HELP US GET THIS RESOLVED.

I BEEN WAITING FOR THE MEETING WITH YOU.

I CALL YOU ASSISTANT AND I NEVER HEAR BACK FROM HIM.

BUT I'M DOING MY BEST.

I'M NOT TRYING TO HURT NOBODY.

AND EVERYBODY ON THE STREET CAN TELL YOU WHAT'S GOING ON.

WE LIVE IT. I MEAN, WE JUST TIRED OF IT, YOU KNOW? AND, SIR, I THINK YOU'RE SPEAKING TO A LARGER ISSUE, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STAY FOCUSED ON THE MATTER BEFORE THE COUNCIL TODAY IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US ON THE SCREEN.

WE OPPOSE HIM BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT'S GOING ON.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S IF I COULD GET IT FOR FREE, I'M GONNA TAKE IT.

AND IT'S BEEN GOING LIKE THIS FOR YEARS, AND THIS LAND IS BEING DIVIDED FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY.

THIS STARTED SINCE LAST YEAR WHEN I DID MY RESEARCH THE MIDDLE OF LAST SUMMER.

ALL THIS STARTED, AND IT TURNS AROUND THAT IF THE ELECTION WOULDN'T TURN OUT THE WAY IT TURNS OUT, AND I TOLD IT TO MISS VAN VRANKEN, IF IT WOULDN'T HAVE TURNED OUT THE WAY IT WAS, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.

IN OTHER WORDS, BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS GOING UNDERNEATH.

AND IT'S BEEN LEFT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, AND THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT TO HER ATTENTION FOR THAT RIGHT THERE.

IT'S GOT TO STOP.

AND IF THIS IS A FREE HOUSE, HE HAS A HOUSE, HE HAS A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE.

YOU WANT THEM OUT AND IT'S ON.

IT'S IN A COURTHOUSE.

IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE BUYER.

THEY SAY IT STOPS BEFORE RIGHT BY THE HOUSE.

IT DON'T STOP WHERE IT GOES TO THE HOUSE.

BECAUSE WHEN I WENT TO PLAN AND SHOWED THEM THAT, THAT THAT SURVEY AND EVERYTHING WHERE IT WAS, THEY SEEN IT, AND THEY TOOK A PICTURE OF IT.

I GIVE IT TO ALICE. HER NAME WAS ALICE THAT WORKED FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THEY KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

AND ANOTHER THING, EVERYBODY CALLED THIS.

I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS MEETING THAT THIS MEETING.

I'M SORRY. THE LAST MEETING, THEY TOLD EVERYBODY, EVEN ME, I WAS THERE WITH THEM.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME TO IT.

BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE PAPERWORK, IT WAS PASSED BY PLANNING.

IT WAS PASSED BY PLANNING THAT PROPHECY ONCE THEY DIVIDE IT.

WHEN I DID MY RESEARCH ONCE, IT'S DIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS TO MAKE IT WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THAT NEW HOUSE AT.

THEY TURN AROUND AND THERE'S NO MORE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT CUTS IT OFF. SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE WITH NO RIGHT OF WAY? AGAIN, LET'S THE ISSUE BEFORE US TODAY.

I'M JUST TRYING TO I KNOW I'LL LET YOU GO TO TRY AND BRING IT ALL BACK, BUT YOU REALLY DIDN'T.

SO, ARE YOU OPPOSED TO THE DEDICATION OF THE FIVE-FOOT SERVITUDE IN FRONT OF US TODAY? BECAUSE THAT'S THE ISSUE TODAY.

THE WATERLINES ON HIS PROPERTY, THE DIVIDING OF THE LAND.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE FIVE. YES. RIGHT.

I AIN'T OPPOSE THAT.

I'M JUST OPPOSED, IN OTHER WORDS, WITH THEM GOING AHEAD AND BUILDING STUFF WITH FEDERAL, I WAS PROBABLY GOING TO BE FEDERAL MONEY, I WOULD GUESS.

YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT IT'S GOT TO BE INVESTIGATED.

OKAY. AND THAT'S, THAT'S BEYOND THE REACH OF THIS COUNCIL.

YEAH. AGAIN, WE'RE JUST CONSIDERING THIS MATTER THAT'S IN FRONT OF US TODAY.

WE ALL HAVE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE, AND YOU CAN'T PASS UNLESS.

UNLESS WE GET PERMISSION.

AND I TOLD HIM THAT THE OTHER DAY.

I SAID IT'S ALL ABOUT A RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU HAVE NO ACCESS BACK THERE.

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN. AND I KNOW THE PARISH PRESIDENT IS TRYING NOT TO BE RUDE AND LEAVE TO GO TO BATON ROUGE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION.

IF SHE HAS TO GO, SHE FOREWARNED US.

I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY, BECAUSE I DO.

REALLY. IT WAS A PLEASURE MEETING WITH YOU AND YOUR WIFE, AND I CAN TELL YOU'RE SINCERE, YOU'RE FRUSTRATED, YOU'RE EXHAUSTED IN LISTENING TO THIS BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS WAS NEW TO ME JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO.

I THINK THERE ARE THREE ISSUES THAT I KEEP HEARING MENTIONED.

AND SO ONE IS WHETHER THE STREET IS PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

ONE IS ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THIS SERVITUDE WITH THE WATER LINE, AND ONE IS WHAT WE SEE ON OUR SCREEN BEFORE US THIS MORNING.

IT'S THIS PROPERTY THAT THE DOTTED LINE IS WHERE THE REQUEST THIS MORNING FOR US IS TO PUT THAT DOTTED LINE IN PLACE AND TO SUBDIVIDE THESE, THIS ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS, FIVE C AND FIVE D.

SO THE MATTER OF THE ROAD AND WHETHER IT'S PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS NOT BEFORE US THIS MORNING.

I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO THE INFORMATION WITH YOU AND IF WE CAN GET CLARITY.

BUT AS JUDGE EDWARDS PUT ON THE RECORD IT HAS BEEN LITIGATED, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYWHERE ELSE TO GO WITH IT.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO TO CLARIFY ANYTHING WE CAN.

AGAIN, THE SERVITUDE IS EXTENDING A WATER LINE.

THE ONLY THING THAT OUR COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER THIS MORNING.

[00:50:04]

SO I DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL UNHEARD.

BUT THE ONLY THING BEFORE US THIS MORNING IS THE DOTTED RED LINE.

ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THAT PROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED? WE CAN'T WEIGH IN THIS MORNING ON THE ROAD.

OR ANY OF THE MATTERS THAT YOU'RE EXPRESSING.

I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND TRY TO HELP.

BUT JUST PLEASE KNOW YOU'RE BEING HEARD.

ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS THE DOTTED RED LINE, AND WE CAN'T WEIGH IN ON ANYTHING ELSE.

SO AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I KNOW Y'ALL ARE Y'ALL ARE EXHAUSTED AND FRUSTRATED AND WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO HELP.

BUT THIS MORNING, THE DOTTED LINE IS ALL WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.

YEAH. SO Y'ALL DON'T.

Y'ALL SAID Y'ALL DON'T KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE HOUSE THAT'S BEING BUILT, BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S BEING DIVIDED BECAUSE OF THE HOUSE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD.

AND THAT'S USUALLY WHY A LOT IS SUBDIVIDED.

AND AS LONG AS IT'S BEING SUBDIVIDED INTO AN APPROPRIATE SIZE IT'S USUALLY BEING SUBDIVIDED.

SO, SOMETHING CAN BE BUILT ON IT.

SO, I DON'T DOUBT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I'M SURE THAT IS WHAT YOU KNOW.

WHAT COULD BE THE INTENTION.

BUT AGAIN, I JUST DON'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT WE CAN WEIGH IN ON THIS THIS MORNING.

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THAT.

LINE, AND I DON'T REPRESENT THIS AREA, BUT I WANT TO POINT SOMETHING OUT.

DO YOU OWN LOT 7G.

I OWN A PORTION OF I-7G.

OKAY, SO JUST KEEP IN MIND I'M READING THIS.

IT SAYS THAT THAT LAPINE STREET PRIVATE THAT NINE FEET IS YOURS.

IT SAYS IN FAVOR OF 7G.

SO THAT'S YOURS. JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THAT THAT YOU STILL MAINTAIN YOUR RIGHT OF WAY.

I KNOW THAT, OKAY? I DO KNOW THAT. OKAY.

WELL, I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO IF WE COULD GET TOGETHER WITH ME, YOU AND MR. ALEX. ALEX.

APPRECIATE IT. JUST ONE MORE THING I'D LIKE TO BRING UP.

IF IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT THIS IS.

ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID LAST TIME THE VOTE WAS 4 TO 3.

ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID, IF IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO MR. GUIDRY WHY HE'S NOT HERE.

THAT'S ME.

I WAS THE FIRST ONE.

THE GENTLEMAN WAS SITTING RIGHT THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S YOU OR NOT, BUT HE SAID, IF IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO MR. GUIDRY WHY HE'S NOT HERE.

THIS IS TWICE WE'VE BEEN UP HERE, AND HE'S NOT BEEN HERE.

JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WHY HE'S NOT HERE.

AS RISING IN OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF BARATARIA, I WALKED IN BARATARIA.

THEY CAN'T GET THEIR DRAINAGE RAVINE CLEARED OUT.

I DON'T EXPECT ANYTHING ON THIS COUNCIL TO DO ANYTHING IN FAVOR OF THE PEOPLE OF BARATARIA.

THAT LIP SERVICE IS FINE.

I LIKE HOW WE CAN EXPLAIN OUR WAY FROM TAKING ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP.

HEY, AT LEAST WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PROTECT THEM FROM THEMSELVES WITH THIS ACTION.

YOU KNOW? IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY ON THIS COUNCIL THAT REPRESENTED BARATARIA, THEY'D BE VOTING AGAINST THIS.

AND THEN YOU'D OVERWHELMINGLY HAVE TO GO ON THE RECORD TO VOTE FOR IT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO COULD REPRESENT BARATARIA.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.

I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS THE CASE.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE. I WAS PRETTY SURE OF IT.

SO, I DON'T KNOW WHY DISTRICT TWO IS TRYING TO ADDRESS THESE PEOPLE FROM BARATARIA DIRECTLY.

THAT SEEMS NOT TO BE REASONABLE TO DO.

REALLY? I MEAN, WE ALL VOTE ON IT SO HE CAN SPEAK TO EVERYONE.

FINE. THAT'S FINE. BUT I THOUGHT IT SOUNDED LIKE HE WAS ALLUDING TO THAT, THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING THAT AREA.

ANYWAY, THE PERSON WHO'S SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THAT AREA, I DON'T REPRESENT DISTRICT TWO.

THAT WAS THE FIRST WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF MY MOUTH I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.

I'M WRONG, SIR, I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.

I MISSED THE DON'T.

FAIR ENOUGH. THE PERSON WHO WOULD HAS GOT TO REPRESENT GRETNA FIRST.

AND I'M PRETTY SURE HE'S GOING TO KNOW EVERYBODY IN LEADERSHIP AND IN THE DIRECTORSHIPS OF GRETNA GOVERNMENT.

AND I'M PRETTY SURE HE'S GOING TO KNOW EVERYBODY THAT'S IN THE LEADERSHIP FROM THE MAYOR ON DOWN TO ALL THE LEADING PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING OVER THERE IN GRAND ISLE. I'M PRETTY SURE HE KNOWS ALL THEM PEOPLE, AND I'M PRETTY SURE HE KNOWS ALL THE PEOPLE WHO RUN JOHN LAFITTE, BUT LOWER LAFITTE.

BARATARIA. THEY'RE THE RED HEADED STEPCHILD OF THE RED HEADED STEPCHILD AND TREATED AS SUCH.

DOESN'T KNOW ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE CAN'T.

CAN'T CLAIM TO KNOW ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE.

HOW COULD HE KNOW ALL THOSE PEOPLE? HOW COULD HE KNOW THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE? WHY WOULD HE BOTHER TO? IT'S A THOUSAND PEOPLE IN BARATARIA.

SAME AMOUNT AS IN JOHN LAFITTE, SAME AMOUNT AS IN GRAND ISLE.

HE'S FAMILIAR WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE IN THOSE TWO MUNICIPALITIES, SERVING THREE AND FOUR MASTERS, THREE MUNICIPALITIES, AND THE UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF DISTRICT ONE. FOR DISTINCTIVELY TAX DIFFERENTLY MASTERS.

YOU CAN'T REPRESENT PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW.

[00:55:02]

THAT'S WHY I OPPOSE THIS, BECAUSE YOU'RE INFRINGING ON THEIR POWER OF SELF-DETERMINATION AS A JEFFERSONIAN, AS SOMEONE WHO JUST UNDERSTANDS THE SIMPLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION.

THIS IS NOT PERSONAL, MR. EDWARDS, AT ALL.

WELL, JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I LIVED IN BARATARIA FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS.

I KNOW A LOT OF THE PEOPLE DOWN THERE, AND I VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF HELPING THEM IN ANY WAY I CAN.

IT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE TO TRY AND SERVE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW YOUR HISTORY.

I CAN'T KEEP TRACK OF EVERYBODY.

THAT'S SO IT'S NOT PERSONAL IN THAT REGARD.

IT'S A MATTER OF WHO'S GOT YOUR EAR.

THAT'S YOUR TIME, MR. HARRIS. THANK YOU.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE TIME I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. SO, I BELIEVE WE HAD ONE IN OPPOSITION AND FOUR WITH QUESTIONS.

WAS ANYBODY THAT CAME ACTUALLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE MATTER ON THE AGENDA WITH THE WAIVER OF THE WATER, EXCUSE ME, THE DEDICATION OF THE WATER SERVITUDE JUST HAD QUESTIONS.

THE TIME'S UP FOR OPPOSITION.

THAT WAS THE 15 MINUTES.

IT WAS. YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. SO, I THINK WE HAVE ONE OPPOSED, FOUR WITH QUESTIONS.

MADAM CLERK THAT WAS THAT.

COUNCILMAN EDWARDS TO YOU BASED ON THE LIMITED ISSUES BEFORE US HERE TODAY, I MOVE TO APPROVE.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 2629 FOR A MOTION OF COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26295.

RESOLVE OF LOT FIVE, SQUARE 61 AND A PORTION OF REVOKED DESOTO PLACE, ELMWOOD SUBDIVISION, WS 1224, COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE AND WAIVE THE READING ON THIS ITEM.

WE NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26295.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T MISS ANYBODY.

I HAD A LOT OF MOVEMENT.

ANYBODY IN FAVOR? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? ANYONE OPPOSITION.

ALL RIGHT. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED.

COUNCILMAN EDWARDS MOVED TO APPROVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26295.

A MOTION OF COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

RESOLVE OF PARTIAL 6A, 4C AND 6A, 4D BELLE PLANTATION SUBDIVISION WS1 2923. COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO CAN WAIVE THE READING HERE.

ITEM SIX.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26296.

WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26296.

PRESCOTT BAILEY 210 EAST MORRIS AVENUE, HAMMOND, LOUISIANA.

THIS IS A COMBINATION OF TWO LOTS TO DO, A DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS ALSO ON THE AGENDA LATER TIME.

HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE.

ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT ONE APPEARED IN FAVOR.

COUNCILMAN BONANO FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26296 ON MOTION OF COUNCIL MEMBER BONANO, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

ITEM SEVEN, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26297, RESUB OF LOTS A AND B SQUARE 41K SOUTH KENNER SUBDIVISION WS 1024 COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE.

WE CAN WAIVE THE READING HERE. WE NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26297.

ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN COUNCILMAN LEE'S ABSENCE.

COUNCILMAN BONANO MOTION ON THIS.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26297.

A MOTION OF COUNCILMAN BONANO SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT WITH AMENDMENTS, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26274.

AMENDING LOT 4B AMES HOMESTEAD FARMS, LOCATED AT 7435 FOURTH STREET.

MORE PARTICULARLY, AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM C-1 TO C-2 WS 2023 COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO IN THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO ADD SECTION TWO.

THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE C-2 ZONING, LOT 4BX AMES HOMESTEAD FARM SHALL NOT BE USED FOR THE OPERATION OF A BAR, NIGHTCLUB, LOUNGE OR RESTAURANT. TO ADD SECTION THREE THAT THE OWNER HAS AGREED TO RECORD THIS ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO PUT THIRD PARTIES ON NOTICE OF THE TITLE RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION TWO, AND TO FIX THE NUMBERING FOR SECTIONS FOUR AND FIVE.

[RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONING]

AND THAT'S ALL THE AMENDMENTS. I HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO AMENDMENTS BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR.

HANG ON FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS COMING IN JUST A SECOND.

THIS IS JUST FOR US.

ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENTS BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR? HEARING NONE. COUNCILMAN BONANO YOUR MOTION ON THE AMENDMENTS.

MOVE TO APPROVE. ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS?

[01:00:02]

ON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN BONANO, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

WE NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26274.

J BEN SEGARRA 6041 TCHOUPITOULAS NEW ORLEANS.

FIRST, I WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD THAT IT'S MY THIRD MEETING AND I'VE NOTICED THAT, AND I'VE BEEN IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS.

I'M A LAWYER BY TRADE.

I WANTED TO SAY THAT WITH RISK OF SYCOPHANCY, OF COURSE, THAT YOU ALL RUN YOURSELVES VERY, VERY CIVICALLY.

COUNCILMAN BONANO, WHO IS MY COUNCILMAN IN DISTRICT TWO.

AS OPPOSED TO ANYTHING WE MAY HAVE HEARD JUST NOW ON THE LIVE OR ON THE RECORD, HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT A GENTLEMAN AND CONDUCTED HIMSELF WITH PERFECT ACCORD.

SO, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR THAT, FIRST OF ALL.

NEXT, LET'S LOOK AT THIS MAP.

WE CAN SEE THAT YOUNG BOULEVARD.

IF THIS WAS A GOOGLE MAP, WE COULD SEE IT'S A VERY PRETTY STREET, A LOT OF GREENERY.

IT'S A PROUD NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WHAT I'VE LEARNED THROUGH THE COURSE OF THESE THREE MEETINGS AND TRYING TO DO WHAT I'M DOING HERE, IS THAT I HAVE THE BENEFIT OF LIVING AROUND A BUNCH OF NICE NEIGHBORS.

THEY'RE CONCERNED THAT I'M GOING TO CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY DOING WHAT I'M DOING.

SO IN ORDER TO ALLAY THOSE FEARS, I PUT MYSELF IN THEIR SHOES AND SAID, WHAT DO I DO? THAT'S JUST BETTER THAN MY WORD.

WHAT'S BETTER THAN A HANDSHAKE? AND I SAID A DEED RESTRICTION WOULD GET EXACTLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO ACROSS.

IT WOULD MAKE IT TO WHERE, IF I WERE TRYING TO GO BACK ON MY WORD, IF I WERE JUST TRYING TO BE SLICK, THEN I'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU ALL AND SAY, GUYS, I'M NOW TRYING TO BE SLICK. AND HERE'S WHAT I'M THINKING.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ME AGAIN ABOUT A BAR AND A NIGHTCLUB AGAIN, I DON'T I LIKE MY MONEY.

I DON'T WANT TO LOSE MONEY.

AND EVEN IN THIS AREA, I GUARANTEE I WOULD LOSE MONEY AND I BORROW A NIGHTCLUB.

I'M TOO NICE OF A GUY.

I WOULD NEVER CHASE PEOPLE DOWN FOR TABS OR ANYTHING.

IT WOULD BE HORRIBLE.

BUT ANYWAY, BACK TO A SERIOUS MATTER, BECAUSE THIS IS SERIOUS AND THIS IS THESE PEOPLE'S NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IT IS MY DREAM, MY AUTOMOTIVE DREAM TO HAVE A CAR CLUB WHERE I HAVE YOU KNOW, WE'RE CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE RACETRACK WHERE RESPECTFUL NEIGHBORHOOD-ORIENTED CAR CLUB, I THINK, WOULD FIT IN HERE VERY NICELY.

AND I THINK WITH THIS DEED RESTRICTION, I'VE TRIED TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYONE IN A NEIGHBORLY AND COMMUNITY FOCUSED WAY.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? WENDY WALL, 620 BERGER STREET, MARRERO, LOUISIANA.

I OPPOSE BECAUSE BERGER STREET IS VERY WELL KNOWN TO OUR COUNCILMAN BONANO, AND WE HAVE FOUGHT A GOOD FIGHT WITH THE STREET, TRUST ME.

AND WE HAVE ALL BEEN ON BOARD AND TRYING TO BETTER THE AREA.

AND MY CONCERN IS HE MENTIONED AT ONE POINT, MR. BEN, THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS PRESENT AT THAT CAR CLUB AND THERE WOULD BE ALCOHOL. WE ALL KNOW THAT.

WE HAVE HAD COUNTLESS FENCES TORN DOWN.

BERGER STREET HAS NO SIDEWALKS FOR THE ELDERLY TO BE WALKED THROUGH THE STREET, YOU KNOW, OR PUSHED IN THEIR WHEELCHAIR FROM THEIR LOVED ONES OR THEIR CAREGIVERS.

THE CHILDREN HAVE NO PLACE TO PLAY.

THEY OFTEN PLAY IN THE STREET.

AND TO DATE, IF YOU LOOK ON THAT STREET RIGHT NOW, THERE'S BLACK TAR UP AND DOWN THE STREET, WE CALL IT THEY. THEY JOKINGLY CALL IT BERGER RACEWAY.

IT'S NOT A FUNNY JOKE.

WHAT'S SAD IS WHEN THERE'S GOING TO END IN FATALITY, THAT'S WHAT'S SCARY.

AND WHEN YOU SEE THIS AND YOU SEE CHILDREN AT PLAY AND THEY'RE INNOCENT, THEY DON'T REALIZE THE DANGERS THAT THEY HAVE PUT THEIR SELF IN AND UNFORTUNATELY, THEIR PARENTS ARE NOT SUPERVISING THEM.

SO THEN HERE COMES THIS PERSON THAT JUST HAD A GOOD TIME DOWN THE STREET AND THEY NOT REALIZING CHILDREN ARE JUST THEY DON'T PAY ATTENTION. AND THEN WE CANNOT EVER UNSEE THIS.

SO, I'M PLEADING WITH YOU TO PLEASE LOOK AT THIS BIG PICTURE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE OUR STREET HAS BEEN DECLARED SUBSTANDARD.

BY JEFFERSON PARISH ZONING AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AS IT IS.

SO, WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS, YOU KNOW, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT Y'ALL PLEASE HEAR OUR CRIES BECAUSE IT'S

[01:05:02]

DEFINITELY SERIOUS.

I MEAN, WE WE'RE BASICALLY, LIKE, WEARING A TIGHT SUIT ON THIS STREET BECAUSE YOU WATCH AS THE VEHICLES.

AND WE STILL PLAGUED WITH THE BIG TRUCKS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES THAT LIKES TO RACE THROUGH THERE.

THEY TEAR DOWN OUR POWER POLES, THEY TEAR DOWN OUR FENCES.

WE HAD ONE HOUSE.

THAT GUY WAS LESS THAN TWO FEET FROM GOING INTO THE FRONT BEDROOM OF THE HOME.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NEED FATALITIES IN THIS.

ADDING TO OUR DILEMMAS DON'T HELP US.

SO, IF Y'ALL WOULD PLEASE KINDLY TAKE A RIDE DOWN, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME LOOK AT THE STREET.

AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND APPRECIATE Y'ALL.

[INAUDIBLE] RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, TOO.

AND THIS HAS I WOULDN'T NORMALLY I DON'T NORMALLY GET UP FOR THESE, Y'ALL KNOW.

I MEAN, I GOT A FEW THINGS I GOT TO GET UP FOR AS A JEFFERSONIAN.

THE SUBDIVIDING OF THINGS.

I DON'T GET UP FOR THIS STUFF UNLESS I.

UNLESS I KNOW THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.

UNLESS I HAVE SOME KIND OF REASON TO PERSONALLY OR TANGIBLY.

I'M NOT GETTING UP FOR THIS.

I'VE WATCHED THESE MEETINGS.

I'VE WATCHED THIS PARTICULAR THING.

I'VE LISTENED TO THE TO THE MAN WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP THE CAR CLUB, AND HE SEEMS AS EARNEST AS ANYBODY COULD BE.

SEEMS LIKE HE'S GONE THROUGH AS MUCH EFFORT AS HE POSSIBLY COULD, AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT HE IS VERY WELL INTENDED.

I'M ALSO JUST AS CONFIDENT AS HE PUT IT IN HIS OWN WORDS, THAT HE'S TOO NICE A GUY.

HE'S JUST TOO NICE A GUY FOR THIS TO SUCCEED.

I DON'T CARE IF IT'S A CAR CLUB OR A BAR.

I'M AFRAID THAT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THIS ZONING.

AND THEN, MUCH LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH EVERY OTHER ZONING THING THAT I'VE HAD TO DO, I HATE HAVING TO LEARN ABOUT Y'ALL'S ZONING.

BUT WHAT I'VE SEEN HAPPEN THROUGH THE ZONING AND THE PLANNING BOARD IS THAT ESSENTIALLY THESE ARE JUST CROTCHETS, INGENUITY THAT BASICALLY MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR NOBODY TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN DOWN THE LINE.

SO, WHAT HAPPENS DOWN THE LINE WHEN THIS GUY FAILS AT THIS CAR CLUB, WHEN SOMEBODY GETS KILLED ON THAT STREET BECAUSE SOMEBODY WAS RECKLESSLY DRIVING OUT THAT CAR CLUB DRIVEWAY.

AND I KNOW ABOUT RECKLESS DRIVING.

I GOT A 70-MILE RACEWAY ON HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER WITH DAIQUIRI SHOP RIGHT UP THE STREET.

RIGHT. DAIQUIRI SHOP GOT CHANGED FROM THE.

IT USED TO BE A CHINESE RESTAURANT, RIGHT? WASN'T NO BAR THERE.

WE USED TO HAVE THE NASTY ASS HOTELS ON THE CORNER THAT GOT CHANGED TO PELICAN CAR WASH.

SO NOW I GOT PEOPLE RACING DOWN HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD DOING 70 MILES AN HOUR TO DRIVE THE CAR.

LOOK, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT'S GOING TO FAIL.

AND YOU HAVE REZONE TO C-2.

NONE OF YOU WILL BE IN OFFICE.

AND THEN SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET A BAR AND IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE, OR SOMEBODY WILL THREATEN THEM.

IF WE DON'T LET THEM HAVE THIS, THEN THEY'LL HAVE A BAR.

RIGHT? I'LL HAVE TO HEAR SOME COUNCIL MEMBER TELL THEM HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM EACH OTHER OR THEMSELVES.

STOP IT. JUST STOP.

JUST EXERCISE SOME RESTRAINT.

SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY.

COMMERCE IS GREAT. COMMERCE IS FINE.

THIS GUY IS TOO WELL INTENDED AND TWO ALREADY COMMITTED TO FAILURE.

YOU CAN'T RUN A BAR. YOU THINK HE'S GOING TO RUN THIS AND NOT INTO THE GROUND? AND WHO'S GOING TO COME BEHIND HIM AND FIX THIS? WRESTLE IT AWAY FROM THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE JEFFERSONIAN.

ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION, MADAM CLERK? NOTE THAT ONE APPEARED IN FAVOR.

TWO APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.

COUNCIL MEMBER BONANO.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE YOU DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUST READ ITS TITLE RESTRICTED.

THE ONLY THING THAT CAN EVER BE THERE IS A CAR CLUB.

THAT'S WHY WE PUT TITLE STRUCTURE.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MISS WALLS, I DON'T SEE BURGER STREET ANYWHERE ON THIS MAP.

AND I WOULD HAVE YOU KNOW THAT I SPOKE TO THE NEIGHBORS IN JUNE AND THEY'RE FINE WITH THIS.

THEY WANT THE, THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE A CAR CLUB NEXT TO THEM THAN SOME OTHER COMMERCIAL BUSINESS BECAUSE IT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL NOW, NOT C-2, BUT IT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL.

SO, THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE A CAR CLUB THERE WITH VERY MILD IMPACTS ON THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER BUSINESS.

AND I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE IN JUNE, NOT SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T LIVE IN THAT AREA.

AND I'M GOING TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 2627 FOR A MOTION OF COUNCILMAN BONANO, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

ITEM NUMBER NINE, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK, SUMMARY NUMBER 26298.

AMENDING THE SPECIAL PERMANENT USE APPROVED UNDER Q 220, ORDINANCE NUMBER 26047 AT 2700 US HIGHWAY 90 WEST ON LOT 2.A SOUTHEAST LAND DISTRICT Q 124 COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.

WE CAN WAIVE THE READING ON THIS ITEM AND NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26298.

ANYONE OPPOSED? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE HAS APPEARED.

[01:10:01]

COUNCIL MEMBER BONANO MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26298A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN BONANO SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

ITEM TEN, MADAM CLERK, SUMMARY NUMBER 26299 AMENDING THE SPECIAL PERMANENT USE ORDINANCE NUMBER 26473 FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MATEX TANK TERMINALS AVONDALE FACILITY LOCATED AT 2750 US HIGHWAY 90 Q-2-24, COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. WAIVE THE READING ON THIS ITEM AS WELL, AND I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26299.

GOOD MORNING. I'M TRACY JOHNSON WITH TMTT.

MY ADDRESS IS 6951 LOUIS THE 14TH, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA.

AND I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION.

BEING FAMILIAR. FRANKIE IS BEING FAMILIAR WITH HOW THIS WHOLE PROCESS WAS DONE AND GONE THROUGH.

YEAH, I'M JUST GOING TO RISE IN OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF RIVER RIDGE AND THE OTHER COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING THIS, THESE IMPROVEMENTS, THIS ZONING.

SO, THERE YOU GO.

AND I KNOW ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS.

YOU KNOW, THIS AIN'T PERSONAL.

ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT ONE APPEARED IN FAVOR.

ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.

COUNCILWOMAN BONANO. AS THESE TANKS WILL BE HOLDING VEGETABLE OIL, NOT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION? THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26299.

A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN BONANO, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

AMEND THE MASTER PLAN OF A SPECIAL PERMIT USE FOR METAIRIE PARK COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL AT 300 PARK ROAD ON LOT CD1 AND CD2.

ITEM NUMBER 11, PLEASE.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26300.

GULF VIEW SUBDIVISION COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.

WE CAN WAIVE THE READING HERE AND NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26300.

ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED.

COUNCILMAN LILLJEBORG YOUR MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26300? A MOTION OF COUNCILMAN LILLJEBORG SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

ITEM 12. SUMMARY NUMBER 26301.

APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST FOR THE WATERS AT PROMENADE AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

LOCATED IN THE 4900 BLOCK OF PROMENADE BOULEVARD ON PARTIAL 6A-4C AND 6A-4D BELLE PLANTATION SUBDIVISION SP 70 DASH 23 COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO.

WE CAN WAIVE THE READING ON THIS ITEM AND NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26301.

PRESCOTT BAILEY 210 EAST MORRIS STREET, HAMMOND AVENUE.

I MEAN, HAMMOND, LOUISIANA.

THIS IS OUR GROUP IS A MIXED-USE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT GROUP.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR A WHILE.

I'VE MET WITH COUNCILMAN BONANO ON THIS.

IT'LL BE A CLASS A MARKET RATE COMMUNITY GATED.

THE FUTURE LAND USE IS FOR MIXED USE, WHICH WE FEEL THIS IS REALLY AN IDEAL LOCATION GIVEN THE SURROUNDING RETAIL.

WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RING ROAD AROUND PROMENADE BOULEVARD, AS WELL AS THE BOULEVARD ENTRY POINTS TO LAPALCO AND BARATARIA THAT ARE REALLY IN DIRE NEED OF IMPROVEMENTS AS FAR AS SIGNAGE, LANDSCAPING AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.

WE'VE DONE TRAFFIC STUDIES.

WE'RE PRESERVING ALL OF THE LIVE OAKS.

I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR MONTHS TO KIND OF CREATE A PROJECT THAT BLENDS WELL WITH THE SURROUNDING RETAIL AND ENCOURAGES MORE OF A MIXED-USE COMMUNITY THERE. AGAIN, CLASS A CLUBHOUSE, FULL TIME STAFF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LEASING CONSULTANTS, MAINTENANCE CREWS.

SO, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT COMMUNITY AND BRINGING SOMETHING GREAT TO THE AREA.

SO, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR? ANYONE OPPOSED? MADAM CLERK? NO ONE APPEARED IN FAVOR.

COUNCILMAN BONANO? MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26301A MOTION OF COUNCIL MEMBER BONANO, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26302 APPROVING REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR A HOME.

ITEM NUMBER 13, PLEASE.

TWO SUITES LOCATED AT 2611 HESSMER AVENUE ON LOT 150-A1 HESSMER FARM SUBDIVISION SP DASH 53 DASH 23 COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.

WE CAN WAIVE THE READING ON THIS ITEM AND NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26302.

ANYONE OPPOSED? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED.

[01:15:02]

COUNCILMAN LILJEBORG YOUR MOTION, BUT.

OH. I'M SORRY. SO, MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NOBODY APPEARED, AND COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN IS RECUSING HERSELF FROM THIS VOTE.

[INAUDIBLE] YOUR MOTION.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26302 ON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN LILJENBERG.

SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER, WITH COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN ABSTAINING.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26303 DECLARING LOTS 12, 13 AND 14.

ITEM 14, PLEASE.

SQUARE THREE HESSMER PARK SUBDIVISION, DIVISION STREET METAIRIE NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING AN EXCHANGE OF SAID LOTS WITH JEFFERSON PARISH LAW ENFORCEMENT. DISTRICT NUMBER ONE FOR LOTS 37, 38 AND 39 SQUARE THREE, HESSMER PARK SUBDIVISION, HESSMER AVENUE, METAIRIE COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE. NOW THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26303.

ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED COUNCILMAN YOUR MOTION.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26303 ON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN LILJENBERG, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

[OTHER PROPERTY MATTERS ORDINANCES]

ITEM NUMBER 15 WITH AMENDMENTS, PLEASE.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26244 AMENDING CHAPTER 18.5 MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE CHANGES DEPARTMENT THAT ISSUES THE LICENSE TO CODE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT INSTEAD OF BUILDING PERMITS THROUGHOUT THE CHAPTER. CHANGES.

THE TERM PERMIT FOR LICENSE THROUGHOUT THE CHAPTER ELIMINATES THE PROPOSED RENEWAL REQUIREMENT.

INSTEAD, THE ORDINANCE WOULD MANDATE THAT CODE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT VERIFY ANNUALLY THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT IS IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE STATE LICENSING BOARD ON OR BEFORE MAY 1ST EACH YEAR.

REMOVES REFERENCE TO LICENSE RENEWAL THROUGHOUT THE CHAPTER.

ELIMINATES PARISH.

[OTHER ORDINANCES (Part 1 of 2)]

PROHIBITION ON GRANTING A PERMIT BASED ON CONVICTIONS OR PLEADINGS OF NOLO CONTENDERE IN SECTION 18.53.

THE CURRENT LANGUAGE WOULD REQUIRE JPSO TO PROVIDE SUCH BACKGROUND CHECK DURING THE PARISH LICENSE PROCESS.

PROPOSED PROCESS WOULD SIMPLY REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE STATE LICENSE.

ADDS THAT IF A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT HAS AN EMPLOYEE ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, BATTERY, ET CETERA, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT DISMISSES THE EMPLOYEE AND THERE ARE NO MORE THAN THREE SUCH OCCURRENCES OCCUR IN A 12-MONTH PERIOD, THEN THE ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED.

REMOVES THE DIRECTOR OF CODE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT FROM THE LICENSE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND CLARIFIES THAT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE GO TO THE PARISH COUNCIL TO THEN IMPOSE PENALTIES AND FINES.

REMOVES REFERENCE TO MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS THROUGHOUT THE REVIEW COMMITTEE SECTION ADDS IN AN ABILITY FOR POWERS TO SECURE THE PROPERTY TO PREVENT ENTRY BY BOARDING OR PADLOCKING WHEN AN ESTABLISHMENT IS SUBJECT TO A REVIEW HEARING DURING ANY IMPOSED SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE ADDS IN A 30-DAY PERIOD FOR EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH NEW LICENSE REQUIREMENTS.

AND THAT'S ALL THE AMENDMENTS.

I HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENTS BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR? HEARING NONE. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, YOUR MOTION ON THE AMENDMENTS MOVED TO APPROVE.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS? A MOTION OF COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26244.

GONNA MAKE YOU TOUGHER ON THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS IN GRETNA.

FRANK HYERS.

GO MAKE IT TOUGHER FOR THEM TO EITHER RENEW OR ARE WE GOING TO MAKE IT IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T NEED MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS? YEAH. WELL, IT SOUNDED LIKE IT INTENDED TO MAKE THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS OPERATE BY THE LAW, WHEREAS THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN WAYS FOR THEM TO GET OR GET AROUND THAT LAW BEFORE THIS.

YES, PERHAPS.

OKAY, THEN I'M IN FAVOR.

WHOLEHEARTEDLY IN FAVOR.

ANYONE ELSE WHOLEHEARTEDLY IN FAVOR? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? YES. ON THAT.

IS THAT DOES THOSE LAWS THAT Y'ALL PUTTING IN FOR THE MASSAGE OR THE CODE COMPLIANCE? DOES THAT CONSIST OF ANYTHING WHICH I'LL DO WITH THE CODE COMPLIANCE.

AND I'M SAYING LAWS AFTER SO MANY TIMES YOU'RE GOING TO CLOSE THEM DOWN OR YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP THEM OPEN.

ARE THOSE CODE COMPLIANCE LAWS? DOES THAT STAND FOR Y'ALL? JUST ASKING FOR MY FRIEND.

SO, ARE YOU IN OPPOSITION? OKAY IF YOU'RE NOT. ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION?

[01:20:04]

MADAM CLERK NOTE THE ONE APPEARED IN FAVOR.

ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.

I KNOW A LOT OF WORK, AND A LOT OF MONTHS WERE PUT INTO THIS COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, YOUR MOTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'RE RIGHT.

THIS HAS BEEN WITH US FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND IT HAS REQUIRED A LOT OF WORK FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AND FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

I THINK I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE CAN AND WILL ENFORCE.

I MOVE TO APPROVE AND THE OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26244 ON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

ITEM 16 NOW WITH AMENDMENTS, PLEASE.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26269.

AMENDING CHAPTER TWO OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

ARTICLE FIVE RELATIVE TO AMENDING SECTION 2-155.10 REGARDING QUALIFICATIONS, TERM LIMITS AND INVESTIGATIVE POWERS OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.

AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE WHAT? MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT THIS BE DEFERRED.

I KNOW THAT COUNCILMAN LEE WAS INTERESTED IN BEING HERE FOR THIS, AND I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT IT BE DEFERRED UNTIL HE CAN BE BACK AND BE WITH US AND HEAR THESE DISCUSSIONS AND VOTE ON THIS FOR ITEM 16.

YOU'RE REFERRING TO ITEM 16.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE MOTION TO DEFER BY COUNCILMAN EDWARDS? IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE DISCUSSION? COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN? I DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO DEFER BUT IS THERE A PARTICULAR MATTER THAT'S.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE US FOR MANY MONTHS, SO I I DON'T KNOW.

IS THERE A PARTICULAR ITEM OF QUESTION? AGAIN, I'M JUST CARRYING THE LEGISLATION.

THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE HAVE WORKED ON WHAT I THINK IS A PLACE OF AGREEMENT FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I THINK THAT COUNCILMAN LEE WAS VERY INTERESTED IN THIS, AND I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD DEFER THIS FOR ONE MEETING AND ALLOW HIM TO BE HERE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY BE HEARD SAYING THAT.

OH, I'M SORRY, I WAS LOOKING UP HERE ON THE DAIS.

I'M SORRY, MISS CHATELAINE.

GO AHEAD. I COMPLETELY RESPECT COUNCILMAN EDWARD'S POSITION.

I WILL SAY THAT I AM ENTIRELY CAUGHT OFF GUARD BY THAT REQUEST.

PRIMARILY BECAUSE, AS I INDICATED IN THE LAST MEETING I HAVE MET WITH EVERY SINGLE COUNCIL PERSON TWICE, FOR THE EXCEPTION OF COUNCILWOMAN BOHANAN AND COUNCILMAN LILJEBORG.

THAT INCLUDES REACHING OUT AND MEETING WITH COUNCILMAN BYRON LEE.

AND I HAVE GONE OVER THE DETAILS OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH COUNCILMAN LEE DURING EACH OF THOSE MEETINGS, AND AT THOSE MEETINGS, HE DID NOT INDICATE TO ME THAT HE HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH LITERALLY ANY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

IN FACT, I WOULD SAY, AND I DO NOT THINK THAT I AM MISREPRESENTING THE MEETING.

I FELT CONFIDENT THAT HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THESE AMENDMENTS OR TOOK NO POSITION ON THEM WHATSOEVER.

HE WAS PRESENT AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

BASICALLY THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE THERE BEFORE ARE THE SAME NOW.

AND HE DID NOT INDICATE THEN THAT HE WOULD HAVE PAUSE.

REGARDING VOTING ON THESE.

SO NOT TO SAY THAT ANY OF Y'ALL MADE ANY COMMITMENTS DURING THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

BUT I WILL SAY IF WE WENT BACK AND REWATCHED THAT COUNCIL MEETING, THERE WERE MULTIPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO TOLD ME AT THAT TIME, WE JUST NEED TO SEE THE AMENDMENTS, KIM AND WE WILL VOTE ON THIS IN MAY.

AND THAT WAS AFTER I CALLED YOUR ATTENTION.

I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SIX MONTHS, AND THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF WHAT IS BEFORE YOU HAS NOT MATERIALLY CHANGED IN SIX MONTHS.

AND IF ANYTHING, WHAT HAS MATERIALLY CHANGED IS THE AUTHORITY THAT I WAS LOOKING TO HAVE RESTORED HAS BEEN MODIFIED AND WE ARE NOW AT A PLACE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNCIL WAS NOT OPPOSED TO MOVING FORWARD.

SO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEFER AGAIN, THEN OF COURSE I HAVE NO VOTE IN THE MATTER.

BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS IS NEITHER HOW GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE OPERATING NOR OVERSIGHT.

OVERSIGHT SHOULD BE OPERATING IN THIS PARISH.

[01:25:05]

AND MISS CHATELAINE, I'VE HEARD EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID.

AND I SPOKE TO COUNCILMAN LEE'S AIDE, AND HE WAS CALLED AWAY SUDDENLY.

OBVIOUSLY, HE PLANNED TO BE HERE TODAY, AND HE HAD SOME QUESTIONS HE WOULD LIKE TO RAISE HERE AND IN A PUBLIC FORUM AND DISCUSS THEM WITH YOU.

AND HE'S NOT HERE.

AND THAT WAS HIS DESIRE.

THAT MOTION NEEDS A SECOND TO DEFER IT.

SO, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I KNOW IT'S TIME TO DO IT.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S TIME TO DO IT, BUT WE'LL SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT.

UNDERSTOOD. SO, COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, YOUR MOTION.

MOTION TO DEFER. IS THERE A SECOND FOR COUNCILMAN EDWARDS? MOTION TO DEFER? CHAIRMAN WALKER, I'LL SECOND IT.

AND THIS IS WHY I'M GOING TO DO IT.

THIS MORNING, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH COUNCILMAN LEE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THIS.

HE WAS CALLED AWAY UNEXPECTEDLY.

AND HE. HE DID, IN THAT CONVERSATION, EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS.

SO, I'M RELUCTANT.

I UNDERSTAND WE ALL WANT TO GET THIS.

WE'RE ALL TIRED OF HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, TO BE QUITE FRANK.

BUT TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST, I FEEL LIKE I FEEL LIKE HE WOULD PREFER TO BE HERE.

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN? SO, TWO THINGS OUT OF RESPECT FOR COUNCILMAN LEE, WHO WAS CALLED AWAY UNEXPECTEDLY, I KNOW HE DID INTEND TO BE HERE AND CONFIRMING WITH HIS OFFICE THAT HE HAS SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS.

I'LL BE AGREEABLE TO DEFER IT FOR ONE MEETING.

WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT ALSO ON A PARALLEL TRACK, BECAUSE THIS HAD COME UP IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, NOW THAT THERE IS A VERSION OF THIS THAT SEEMS TO DOCUMENT SOME AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, IS IT ALSO POSSIBLE THAT WE READ SOMETHING INTO SUMMARY AT THE END, SO THAT WE CAN SUBMIT THAT BODY AS A CLEAN VERSION, THAT CANCEL THIS AND READ SOMETHING NEW INTO SUMMARY THAT REFLECTS ALL THE AMENDMENTS MEETING, THOUGH, SO THAT WE CAN VOTE ON IT AT THE AT THE NEXT MEETING.

WOULD THAT BE AN ACCEPTABLE PATH FORWARD TO CANCEL THIS ONE? READ INTO SUMMARY SO THAT WE ULTIMATELY CAN PUBLISH THE BODY THAT'S A BETTER.

VERSION OF WHERE WE ARE AT THIS TIME.

COUNCIL MEMBER BONANO.

WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO ASK PARISH ATTORNEY, IS THAT OKAY TO DO THAT? YES. YOU HAVE TO CANCEL THIS, AND THEY'LL HAVE TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON IT WHEN YOU READ IT INTO SUMMARY.

AND OF COURSE, THAT WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS WHEN YOU BRING IT IN.

THANK YOU. SO THAT WOULD BE AT THIS MEETING.

YOU WOULD PREPARE A SUMMARY.

WE OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

AND AS LONG AS IT'S UNANIMOUS.

OKAY. IS EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD IN THAT WAY? MAYBE CLEANER? CANCEL THE CURRENT ITEM.

WE READ THE NEW ITEM INTO SUMMARY, HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, MOVE FORWARD AND IT'S VOTED ON AT THE NEXT MEETING.

NEW VERSION. IN THE NEW VERSION.

OKAY RATHER THAN THE MOTION TO DEFER, IS THERE A MOTION TO CANCEL? I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION BASED UPON THE DISCUSSION.

A MOTION TO CANCEL BY COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. SO, ANY OBJECTION TO THE MOTION TO CANCEL BY COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER? HEARING NONE SO ORDERED.

ALL RIGHT. NUMBER 17, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26287 APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTY RECEIVING THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION THAT IS OWNED AND OCCUPIED BY A QUALIFIED FIRST RESPONDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE SEVEN, SECTION 2101 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF LOUISIANA.

WHENEVER THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26287.

ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? GREAT GUYS. WHAT DO I HATE? THIS ONE? IT'S KIND OF LIKE HAVING A POSE.

RECYCLING. OF COURSE, I PLAN ON MAKING MYSELF A FIRST RESPONDER BEFORE I'M TOO OLD TO.

I WILL TRY AND SCOOP UP EVERY LITTLE EXEMPTION AND BENEFIT I CAN GET, RIGHT? JUST RATS AFTER CHEESE.

WHY THAT FUNDAMENTAL RULE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND.

REPRESENTATIVES AND DIRECT TAXES SHALL BE APPORTIONED AMONG THE SEVERAL PARTS OF THE PARISH AND SEVERAL MUNICIPALITIES, SEVERAL UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS DESIGNATED PLACES, IF YOU WILL.

IF WE DID THIS, IF WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THIS MEANT, WE WOULD NEVER TOLERATE EXEMPTIONS THAT DIDN'T APPLY TO ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE.

BE EXEMPTED BY R1.

ALL R1 PROPERTY WOULD BE EXEMPTED, ALL R2 PROPERTY WOULD BE EXEMPTED WITH NO REGARD FOR INCOME, VOCATION, OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT COULD BE SEEN AS DISCRIMINATORY, DISCRIMINATORY OR PREJUDICIAL.

[01:30:04]

OR SOMEHOW BENEFITING EITHER YOU OR ME TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO OUR POSTERITY, REQUIRES THESE RULES, THESE FUNDAMENTAL RULES TO BE ADHERED TO.

WITHOUT IT, WE'RE JUST STEALING FROM THE FUTURE TO AFFORD THIS.

AND AS I SAID BEFORE, THE WORST PART ABOUT THIS ONE, THE ABSOLUTE WORST PART ABOUT THIS EXEMPTION THAT PASSED STATEWIDE, THIS AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION IS BLOATED.

OH, AND IT'S BLOATED.

MAKING ENEMIES, CODIFYING A VIRTUAL REPRESENTATION WHEREIN ORLEANS PARISH AND JEFFERSON PARISH ARE MADE ENEMIES OF EACH OTHER, MADE IT TAKE PRIDE IN HOW WE SUCCEED IN SOMETHING WHERE OUR NEIGHBOR FAILS AND STEALS EVERY BIT OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.

WHETHER I'M TALKING ABOUT FAITH OR THE PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT FROM US.

AND THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DEAL, IT COMES DOWN TO SOMETHING SO SIMPLE AND SO WELL INTENDED AS GIVING FIRST RESPONDERS A BREAK.

THAT BREAK IS DISPROPORTIONATELY ENJOYED BY THE SMALLEST OF PARISHES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LARGEST OF PARISHES.

I'VE EXPLAINED THIS, I COULD GO ON EXPLAINING IT EVERY SINGLE TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS COMES UP, I COULD SPEND 15 MINUTES EXPLAINING THIS.

IT'S THE CORE OF EVERYTHING.

IF THIS FUNDAMENTAL RULE ISN'T ADHERED TO REPRESENTATIVES' DIRECT TAXES, PROPERTY TAXES, INCOME TAXES, ESTATE TAXES, WEALTH TAXES, BIRTH TAXES. IF YOU DO IT, WE TAX IT, AND YOU CAN'T AVOID IT.

THAT'S A DIRECT TAX.

IT INVOLVES EVERYTHING.

IT TOUCHES EVERYTHING.

IT'S GERMANE TO EVERYTHING.

YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION THAT'S LEGITIMATE WITHOUT IT.

IT MEANS ALL WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS FRUIT FROM A POISONED TREE.

AND I KNOW THE BOOK ENDS HERE.

I KNOW THEY UNDERSTAND THESE FUNDAMENTAL COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES.

AND TRUST ME, THE PEOPLE GET IT.

IF YOU'RE NOT LEGITIMATELY FORMED, IF YOU CAN'T APPORTION THE BODY, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING LEGITIMATELY.

FRUIT OF A POISON TREE.

THAT'S WHAT WE GOT GOING ON HERE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS THIS LITTLE ORDINANCE IS ABOUT.

FRUIT OF A POISON TREE.

SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO MOTIVATE EVERYBODY TO GO, BECOME QUALIFIED, CERTIFIED AS A FIRST RESPONDER NO MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.

THAT'S A FIRST RESPONDERS' DUTY OR NOT.

EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GO JUMP TO GET THIS QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION SO THEY CAN GET THIS CHEESE.

YOU UNDERMINE THOSE WHO WOULD DO THIS SERVICE.

THOSE ARE THAT ARE COMMITTED TO THIS SERVICE.

YOU UNDERMINE THIS.

IT'S ILL-GOTTEN GAINS.

ALL OF THIS AMOUNTS TO AN ILL-GOTTEN GAIN.

AND I'M NOT TRYING TO DO THIS TO SOMEHOW INSULT THOSE THAT ARE COMMITTED TO THESE THINGS, RIGHT? I'M TRYING TO WAKE YOU ALL UP.

IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT TO ME, IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS BODY IS APPORTIONED BETTER THAN THOMAS JEFFERSON EXPLAINED TO GEORGE WASHINGTON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES THAT ARE SUPERSEDING. IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT TO ME, ANYBODY, FIND ANYBODY? I'LL GO HOME AND WORK ON PIANOS.

I GOT OTHER THINGS TO DO.

I POSE AS A JEFFERSONIAN COMMITTED TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE REPUBLICAN FORM, GUARANTEED UNDER THE ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION FOUR.

FIGURE IT OUT. ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN.

COUNCILMAN BONANO.

GO AHEAD AS A CERTIFIED FIRST RESPONDER.

AS A CERTIFIED FIRST RESPONDER, I CANNOT DISAGREE WITH MR. HIRES ANYMORE.

I TAKE OFFENSE AT HIS REMARKS.

IN THIS DAY AND AGE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET PEOPLE TO BE A POLICEMAN.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET PEOPLE TO BE AN EMT AND A FIREFIGHTER BECAUSE THE WORLD AS WE LIVE IN TODAY CRITICIZES THOSE INDIVIDUALS FOR DOING THEIR JOB EVERY DAY. AND AS A POLICE OFFICER WHO THREE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN DEPARTMENT GOT SHOT IN THE LINE OF DUTY THIS WEEKEND.

ANYTHING I CAN DO TO SUPPORT THOSE PEOPLE, I'M WILLING TO DO? THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26287A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

ITEM 18, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26304 TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 14796, THE PAY PLAN FOR THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE OF JEFFERSON PARISH TO CREATE A NEW CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN RESOURCE ADMINISTRATOR.

WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26304.

ANYONE OPPOSED? AS A JEFFERSONIAN. I OPPOSE THIS LACKING FOR AN APPORTIONED BODY.

YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING LEGITIMATE.

[01:35:03]

ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26304 A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26305 TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 14796, THE PAY PLAN FOR THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE OF JEFFERSON PARISH TO REVISE THE CLASS TITLE AND BASE HOURS PER WEEK FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF ALARIO CENTER OPERATIONS MANAGER, NOW OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26305.

ITEM 19, PLEASE.

I GOT BROAD SHOULDERS, FRANKIE HYERS.

ANYONE OPPOSITION.

I CAN OPPOSE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE THINGS ON THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, AND WE'LL DO SO.

AND IT IS NEVER PERSONAL.

BE A WHOLE LOT EASIER FOR ALL OF US IF WE FIGURE THAT OUT.

ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26305 ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

HEARING NONE SO ORDERED. I HAVE A NOTE THAT NUMBER 20 WILL BE DEFERRED TO OUR MAY 22ND MEETING.

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION ON THAT DEFERRAL OF ITEM 20.

MOTION TO DEFER. ANY OBJECTION TO THE DEFERRAL OF ITEM 20 TO 5 2224.

ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

ITEM 21, PLEASE, WITH AMENDMENTS.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26307 AMENDING THE 2024 OPERATING BUDGET AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO TRANSFER $370,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND HEAD START GRANTS TO THE GENERAL FUND ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT TO FUND VARIOUS ACCOUNTING PROJECTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE ERP IMPLEMENTATION COUNCIL AT LARGE.

A AT THE REQUEST OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO ALLOCATE $20,000 FROM COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE'S WEST BANK RIVERBOAT GAMING FUND FOR A CEA WITH THE JEFFERSON PARISH FINANCE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDING FOR THE NEW ORLEANS EDUCATION LEAGUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE A RESIDENTIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

TO REVITALIZE THE HOUSING STOCK OF TARRYTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROMOTE FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE TO ALLOCATE $20,000 FROM AT LARGE EHS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR A CEA WITH THE JEFFERSON PARISH FINANCE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDING FOR THE NEW ORLEANS EDUCATION LEAGUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE A RESILIENT FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

TO REVITALIZE THE HOUSING STOCK OF TARRYTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROMOTE FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

COUNCIL AT LARGE. A AND THAT'S ALL THE AMENDMENTS.

I HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENTS BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR? LET ME ASK FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS IMPROPERLY, SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS BEING OFFERED AND MOVING FORWARD.

IF I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO OFFER TO THIS ITEM, DO I DO THAT NOW? DO I DO THAT AFTER THIS SET OF AMENDMENTS? AND POSE A SEPARATE AMENDMENT? NO. AS LONG AS IT'S PART OF THE OPERATING BUDGET, WE CAN DO IT AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. SO ON ITEM 21 AS IT EXISTS NOW AND AS IT WAS SUBMITTED WE HAVE SOME MONIES ON HERE THAT ARE COMING FROM THE JUDICIAL SERVICE MILLAGE OR CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE.

860,000 TO GO TO THE GENERAL FUND.

LAST NIGHT WE WERE IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER OF CONCERN BY OUR OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ABOUT THIS TRANSACTION.

THE PARISH PRESIDENT, OUR COUNCIL AND PARISH ATTORNEY.

I WOULD RATHER ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR INSPECTOR GENERAL.

I'VE ALSO RAISED CONCERNS PERSONALLY ABOUT THIS HAPPENING.

SO I'M GOING TO ADD AN AMENDMENT SEEK TO ADD AN AMENDMENT THAT WILL PULL THOSE ITEMS THAT RELATE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE MOVEMENT OF FUNDS INTO THE GENERAL FUND AND ASK THAT THAT BE STRICKEN FROM THIS ITEM SO THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT UP NEXT COUNCIL MEETING AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

SO IS THAT AMENDMENT TAKEN SEPARATELY FROM THE OTHER AMENDMENTS, AS WE WHAT I'M ASKING, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROCEDURALLY HANDLE THAT.

I WOULD THINK IT WOULD NEED A SECOND AND YEAH, TAKE ANY OTHER AMENDMENT.

OKAY. SO DO WE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS AS READ FIRST AND THEN COME BACK AND DO THE NEXT AMENDMENT.

SO WE VOTE ON THESE FIRST. THEN WE COME BACK WITH THE NEXT AMENDMENT.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING. SO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS THAT LISBETH READ INTO THE RECORD WE'LL VOTE ON THAT FIRST AS A GROUP.

OKAY. AND THEN I CAN OFFER THAT AMENDMENT SEPARATELY, WHICH I'M FINE DOING.

OKAY. ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENTS BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR AS READ BY THE COUNCIL CLERK?

[01:40:03]

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN HEARING? NONE. SO, COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION ON THE AMENDMENTS, I'LL MOVE ON THOSE AMENDMENTS.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THOSE AMENDMENTS? A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

SO NOW WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THOSE AMENDMENTS, THEN COME BACK.

OKAY. WE NOW WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26307.

ANYONE IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

YEAH. FRANKIE HYERS IN OPPOSITION.

AND IT'S GREAT.

I MEAN, I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE THAT AMENDMENT.

I CAN'T THANK THE AT LARGE MEMBER FOR.

THE DIVISION, WHATEVER IT WAS THAT I MIGHT HAVE RAN FOR.

NO, I MEAN, I UNFORTUNATELY, TO ME, THAT'S LIKE THE EVIDENCE OF THE SHELL GAME.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THIS UP AND WE'RE GOING TO INVESTIGATE THAT.

BUT THE WHOLE THE WHOLE REASON WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL IS BECAUSE YOU ALL AREN'T ACTUALLY REPRESENTATIVE BODY.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY, YOU BE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

AS EACH ONE OF YOU.

I WOULDN'T NEED TO PAY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

BUT I LOOK AT THE JOB DUTIES OF THE CHIEFS OF STAFF.

AND THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A CAHOOTS AND THE AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP SOLIDIFIES THAT CAHOOTS MILLAGE, JUVENILE MILLAGE.

MILLAGE. I TALK ABOUT THAT WORD.

I ASK EVERYBODY, I SAID, TRYING TO TRY AND DEFINE THAT WORD.

CAN'T EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS.

YOU CAN'T APPROVE IT.

THEY LACK FOR THE ENLIGHTENMENT REQUIRED EXERCISE OF CONTROL WITH A WHOLESOME DISCRETION.

THE SOLUTION WOULD NOT BE TO TAKE IT FROM THEM, BUT TO INFORM THEIR DISCRETION.

THIS IS A TRUE CORRECTIVE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ABUSES OF POWER.

WHETHER I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WORD MILLAGE.

YOU GOT 15,000 PEOPLE TO PROVE THIS LAST ONE, 8000 AGAINST IT.

MY NUMBERS ARE IMPROVING.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WAKE UP AND SEE ALL THIS FOR WHAT IT IS.

HOW CAN 15,000 PEOPLE APPROVE A MILLAGE TO COMPLY TO 280,000 VOTERS AND THINK IT'S LEGIT? AND THE WORST PART IS, IS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE APPROVING THESE MILLAGES AREN'T SUBJECT TO THEM FROM ONE EXEMPTION TO THE NEXT.

AND TO THINK THAT I OPPOSE ANY OF THESE EXEMPTIONS OR THE GOODNESS OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE EARNING THEM PERSONALLY, AS THOUGH I DON'T SUPPORT FIRST RESPONDERS, MY LIFE DEPENDS ON THEM REGULARLY.

I WORK HAND IN HAND WITH THEM REGULARLY, AND THIS AIN'T ABOUT ME EVER, I DON'T MATTER, I AM A FOOL, A FOOL ADDRESSING AN ILLEGITIMATE COURT.

THAT'S IT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRY AND DISPARAGE ME, CONDESCEND ME, MAKE ME LOOK BAD.

TRUST ME, I DO THAT WELL ENOUGH ON MY OWN.

AND PLENTY OF PEOPLE HAVE PICTURES TO PROVE IT.

CAN WE STAY ON TOPIC? MR. MEYERS.

YEAH, SURE.

MILLAGE PRETTY WORD.

MAKES IT EASY TO APPROVE.

I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THE EFFORT TO PULL THIS OUT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT GIVES US A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE LACK OF COMPREHENSION FOR THAT WORD.

WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER AMENDMENTS, IT'S STILL THE SAME STUFF.

IT'S THE ILL GOTTEN GAINS.

IT'S THE FRUIT OF A POISON TREE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED WITH.

YOU CAN KEEP ON MOVING MONEY FROM HERE AND THERE, BUT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU GOT IT.

SO YOU REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH.

WHEN I SAW THIS BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM AND I'VE BEEN TO TARRYTOWN, I GOT PLENTY OF VOTES IN TARRYTOWN.

I HOPE I'M NOT GOING TO LOSE THEIR VOTES RIGHT.

BY OPPOSING SOMETHING THAT'S SO GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WILL RECEIVE THIS BENEFIT.

I JUST WONDER ABOUT THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT CAN'T RECEIVE THIS BENEFIT THAT WON'T MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS ARE POOR ENOUGH, AREN'T AREN'T SOMEHOW DISENFRANCHIZED ENOUGH TO QUALIFY.

GET WHAT I'M SAYING? IT'S A CRY TO THE INGENUITY THAT NOBODY CAN CONDUCT OVERSIGHT UPON INSPECTOR GENERAL GOING TO LOOK OUT AND CHECK EVERY ONE OF THOSE HOUSES AND MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T SPEND SOME MONEY SOMEWHERE WHERE IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE.

NO, PLAYING WHACK A MOLE UP HERE.

I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE.

MADAM CLERK. NOTE THAT ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.

I'M GOING TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY WERE OFFERED.

AND NOW WE APPROVE SUMMARY NUMBER 26307 AND GO BACK.

SO I DO WANT TO OFFER ANOTHER AMENDMENT FOR CONSIDERATION ON ITEM 21 AS AMENDED, BECAUSE I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT SET OF AMENDMENTS. WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO ITEM 21 THAT WOULD PULL OUT FROM THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT THE FUNDS THAT ARE MOVING FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE TO THE GENERAL FUND.

WHEN THESE MONIES WERE BEING ALLOCATED ON THIS BUDGET, IT'S MOVING FROM CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE.

MILLAGE MONIES ARE PROTECTED FOR SPECIFIC USES.

AND TO ME, IT'S A STRONG MATTER OF PUBLIC TRUST, BECAUSE WHEN VOTERS GIVE US A VERY LIMITED AUTHORITY TO USE FUNDS, WE DAMN SURE BETTER USE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE WISHES EXPRESSED EXPRESSED BY THE VOTERS.

[01:45:03]

WE ARE MOVING MILLAGE MONEY INTO THE GENERAL FUND.

WHAT I ASKED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION EARLIER THIS WEEK TO DO IS IF WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE MOVE OF BUDGET FUNDS, THEN TO PROVIDE THE LIST OF APPROVED ITEMS WHERE THESE MILLAGE MONIES COULD BE ALLOCATED.

BUT I HAVE TO SAY, I DO HAVE A FEELING THAT THIS IS A SHELL GAME AND IT'S LACKING TRANSPARENCY AT THIS MOMENT.

AND SO WE ARE MOVING MILLAGE MONIES INTO THE GENERAL FUND WITHOUT SPECIFICITY THAT GUARANTEES AND TRANSPARENCY THAT GUARANTEES THE VOTERS OF JEFFERSON PARISH THAT THEY'RE BEING USED.

HOW THEY GAVE US THE AUTHORITY TO USE IT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE STEWARDS OF THE PUBLIC TRUST.

AND IF THIS IS NOT TRANSPARENT I WOULD ASK THAT WE DEFER IT UNTIL THIS CAN BE MOVED FORWARD WITH TWO THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, AN ASSURANCE THAT THERE IS A LIST OF ITEMS THAT ARE LEGAL ACCORDING TO THE MILLAGE LANGUAGE.

AND THAT'S WHERE THESE MONIES ARE GOING TO GO.

AND AT THIS MOMENT, THAT LIST HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED.

AND LAST NIGHT WE GOT AN UNPRECEDENTED LETTER FROM THE IG THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THIS, SAYING THAT THIS TRANSFER, THIS SHELL GAME RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT THE MISUSE OF DEDICATED REVENUE.

IT'S GOING TO OBSCURE HOW THESE MILLAGE FUNDS WITHOUT THAT SPECIFIC LIST ARE BEING USED.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO ON THE SIDE OF GOOD GOVERNMENT AND TRANSPARENCY.

AND SO I'M ASKING FOR A ONE MEETING DEFERRAL OF THESE MILLAGE FUNDS BEING TRANSFERRED JUST BLANKLY INTO THE GENERAL FUND UNTIL WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION AND UNTIL WE CAN PUT OURSELVES TRANSPARENTLY ON THE RECORD THAT THESE MONIES ARE BEING USED APPROPRIATELY.

OTHERWISE, THERE'S NOT THE TRANSPARENCY THAT I THINK VOTERS OF JEFFERSON PARISH EXPECT.

SO I'M ASKING THAT THIS BE THIS PORTION BE EXTRICATED FROM THE BUDGET AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME AND DEFERRED ONE MEETING OR REMOVED.

AND IT CAN BE ADDED, HOWEVER, THAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED MECHANICALLY.

IF IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO AN ORDINANCE THAT'S ON THE AGENDA, YOU WOULD NEED A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

YOU KNOW YOU'RE BRINGING IT FROM THE FLOOR IN ORDER TO AMEND THE THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS.

OKAY. IN A SECOND, RIGHT? THEN A VOTE. OKAY, SO I'M OFFERING THE AMENDMENT TO THIS BUDGET ITEM, THE OPERATING BUDGET, TO REMOVE THE PORTION OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE MOVING FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE, MONEY THAT IS RESTRICTED INTO THE GENERAL FUND.

THAT'S. ARE WE? YEAH. YEAH.

I'M GOING TO ASK NOW.

YOU NEED A SECOND? WAIT, ARE WE VOTING RIGHT NOW? I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE'RE VOTING RIGHT NOW WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW AN AMENDMENT FROM THE FLOOR.

NOT NECESSARILY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THE AMENDMENT.

OKAY? SO MAKE SURE.

OKAY. OKAY.

SO IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT FROM COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN COMING FROM THE FLOOR? A MOTION COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

COULD I GET MR..

WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE LETTER TO THE IG FROM THE IG? HANG ON, STEVE, LET ME TURN.

IT SHOULD BE ON. SO WE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE LETTER AS WELL.

AND HISTORICALLY, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST IS THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE GENERATES SOMEWHERE AROUND $4.6 MILLION A YEAR.

IN THE PAST, ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT BUDGETED FROM THAT, THAT MILLAGE MONEY WAS PUT INTO THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER ALLOWED COSTS AND ALLOWED A LOT OF COSTS THAT CURRENTLY COME OUT, COME OUT OF THE THE, THE GENERAL FUND.

SO OUR APPRECIATION OF THE AMENDMENT IS MOVING THAT MONEY INTO THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER THOSE ALLOWED COSTS TO USE THE FUNDS WHERE THEY CAN BE USED, BECAUSE CURRENTLY WE HAVE ABOUT $46 MILLION OF COST IN THE GENERAL FUND THAT CAN THAT, THAT, THAT FALL WITHIN THAT, THAT PARAMETERS.

SO THERE'S SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES CURRENTLY THAT THE AGE 60 COULD BE APPLIED TO.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE OUR POSITION IS THAT THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE USED ADEQUATELY AND APPROPRIATELY TO COVER THOSE FUNDS AS ALLOWED BY THE MILLAGE LAW.

AND IT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, JUST LIKE IT WAS DONE FOR THE ARPA FUNDS.

ARPA FUNDS HAD RESTRICTIONS.

THEY WERE MOVED IN AND OBLIGATED FOR DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT PROJECTS GOING FORWARD.

STEVE, IS THERE ANY TIME SENSITIVITY TO WHY THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE A BUDGET AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME, THIS MEETING, OTHER THAN THE COUNCIL APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE AND GRETNA PD AT THE LAST MEETING TO GET THIS ON THE ON THE TO GET THIS, YOU KNOW, WRAPPED UP.

SO SO LAST MEETING I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S YOU KNOW ANY TYPE OF ISSUES OUTSTANDING WHERE THEY NEED TO TO SPEND THE FUNDS AT YOU KNOW CURRENTLY.

[01:50:06]

BUT YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY.

SO LAST MEETING AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG LAST MEETING.

THE AGREEMENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WAS APPROVED TO MOVE $1 MILLION OF THE GENERAL FUND TO THE TASK FORCE.

THAT'S THE AGREEMENT THAT PASSED.

$1 MILLION IS COMING FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT AGREEMENT SPEAKING TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE.

AND I ASKED ON THE RECORD IF THE ADMINISTRATION HAD ANY CONCERN WITH IT COMING FROM THE OPERATING FROM THE GENERAL FUND, RATHER.

AND NO, WAS THE ANSWER I GOT.

SO THAT AGREEMENT STANDS.

THOSE FUNDS ARE COMING FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

IT SHOULDN'T IMPEDE THAT AGREEMENT IN ANY WAY.

THIS IS REGARDING THE MILLAGE DOLLARS THAT ARE RESTRICTED IN USE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING TO BE DELAYED, THAT UNTIL WE CAN ALL HAVE A CONVERSATION AND MAKE SURE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THESE FUNDS ARE BEING USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESTRICTIONS, IT SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE TASK FORCE AT ALL.

THIS IS JUST A MATTER OF MAKING SURE THE MILLAGE FUNDS ARE BEING APPROPRIATELY USED.

SO I BELIEVE THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS PASSED AT THE LAST MEETING WAS UP TO $1 MILLION, UP TO $1 MILLION.

YES. AND THE H.

60 THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE FUNDS THAT WILL BE UTILIZED FOR ALLOWED EXPENSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING PAID FOR BY THE GENERAL FUND.

WHY IS THIS BEING NECESSITATED? THIS EIGHT 60 WHY ARE THESE FUNDS MOVING INTO THE GENERAL FUND? WELL, BECAUSE THE THE COUNCIL PUT THE BUDGET AMENDMENT ON ON THE ON THE BUDGET.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL PASSED THE COUNCIL PASSED AN ORDINANCE LAST YEAR TO FUND THE TASK FORCE UP TO $1 MILLION.

YES, BUT THEY DID NOT DELINEATE THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDING.

IS THAT NOT IN THE BUDGET BOOK? AND THIS IS A QUESTION, REALLY, FOR TIM PALMATIER, WHEN THE COUNCIL LAST YEAR VOTED TO AUTHORIZE THE TASK FORCE UP TO $1 MILLION, WAS THAT BUDGETED IN OUR 2024 BUDGET? IT'S IN THE BUDGET, BUT IT WASN'T IN THE ORDINANCE.

IS IT IN THE BUDGET AND HOW IS IT BUDGETED? THE 860.

AND LET ME GET YOUR MICROPHONE ON WITH YOU.

YEAH. HOW WAS IT IN THE BUDGET? BECAUSE WE DID. WE AUTHORIZED LAST YEAR THAT THE TASK FORCE WOULD BE BUDGETED UP TO $1 MILLION.

I'M ASKING, HOW IS HOW IS IT IN OUR BUDGET BOOK 860,000 INTO THE GENERAL FUND? UNMUTE YOURSELF, PLEASE.

I THINK YOU'RE MUTED ON YOUR END.

TRANSFERRING THE MONEY INTO THE GENERAL FUND.

RAISE UP GENERAL FUND MONEY TO BE USED.

YEAH, THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION.

I MEAN, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE, BUT I'M ASKING HOW WAS IT BUDGETED IN OUR BUDGET BOOK IN THE 2024 BUDGET? WHERE DOES THE TASK FORCE FUNDING LIVE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE? YES. OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A BUDGET BOOK THAT DOCUMENTS THAT THE TASK FORCE IS GOING TO USE $860,000 OUT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE WHEN LEGAL WEIGHED IN AND SAID THAT IS NOT A LEGAL USE OF THOSE RESTRICTED FUNDS.

THEN THE EIGHT 60 CAME FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

ACTUALLY, A MILLION CAME FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

NOW WE'RE TRYING TO DO A SHELL GAME WHERE WE'RE MOVING EIGHT 60 FROM THE MILLAGE INTO THE GENERAL FUND TO BRIDGE THE GAP FOR THE ILLEGAL USE.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE A CONCERN WITH.

THAT IS WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS A CONCERN WITH.

AND WHAT I SAID AT OUR MEETINGS EARLIER THIS WEEK IS IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE AND GIVE A LIST THAT WE CAN ALL EYEBALL AND SAY, YEP, THOSE ARE AUTHORIZED USES ACCORDING TO THE MILLAGE MONEY, I HAVE NO PROBLEM.

IT'S STILL A SHELL GAME, BUT WE RISK VIOLATING THE PUBLIC'S TRUST IF WE ARE DOCUMENTING THAT BECAUSE SOMEONE GOT TOLD NO, YOUR FIRST SOURCE OF MONEY WAS NOT LEGAL AND WE'RE PLAYING A SHELL GAME TO FILL THE GAP.

I HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC TRUST.

OUR INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS PUT HER CONCERNS SEPARATELY ON THE RECORD.

I'VE BEEN RAISING THESE CONCERNS FOR A FEW WEEKS NOW AND CAN'T GET A LIST OF ITEMS, WHICH SHOULD BE A SIMPLE TASK FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION.

GIVE ME A LIST OF ITEMS THAT FIT THE LEGAL CRITERIA.

OTHERWISE, EVERY MILLAGE THAT WE HAVE WILL VIOLATE THE PUBLIC'S TRUST, AND THAT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

IF WE CAN'T TRANSPARENTLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE THE MONIES ARE GOING TO BE USED ACCORDING TO THE VOTERS WISHES, COUNT ME OUT.

AND YOU'VE ACTUALLY JUST DOCUMENTED THE SHELL GAME BY SAYING IT WAS BUDGETED FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE, WHICH THEN IS NOT LEGAL.

SO WE'RE DOING A MONEY SWAP THAT'S EVEN WORSE.

AND ON COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN NOTE, LAST MEETING I WASN'T I AGREED TO THE MILLION COMING FROM THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE WE WERE GIVEN ASSURANCES THAT THERE WOULD BE MONEY THAT WOULD BE SWAPPED, THAT WOULD BE KOSHER.

AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE CASE NOW.

SO I AM PROTECTIVE OF THE GENERAL FUND, AS EVERYBODY UP HERE KNOWS.

[01:55:02]

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE DO IN THIS OFFICE, BECAUSE THE GENERAL FUND IS SO DEDICATED EXPENSE WISE.

I MEAN, WE HAVE 15% OF THAT THAT'S NOT DEDICATED THAT WE PLAY WITH EVERY YEAR.

SO I'M NOT OKAY WITH A MILLION OF THAT, THAT MILLION DOLLARS, UP TO $1 MILLION COMING FROM THE GENERAL FUND, BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THE LAST MEETING. SO THE THE PARISH TOURNEY GET A CHANCE TO READ THE LETTER FROM THE IG.

I DID, I READ IT THIS MORNING AND SOME USES A LOT OF THE MONEY.

WHEN YOU READ THE LANGUAGE IN THE MILLAGE, THERE ARE USES THAT ARE LEGAL TO GO TOWARDS THE TASK FUND.

CERTAINLY ANYTHING JUDICIALLY RELATED CAN COME FROM THIS VILLAGE, BUT NOT ALL OF IT.

YOU TURN YOURSELF OFF. THERE IT IS, WHAT WE DISCUSSED AND AND AGAIN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

I AM DEPENDING ON THE LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE BY THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT SAYS THESE MONIES ARE TO BE USED FOR JUDICIAL PURPOSES, NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TASK FORCE IS PREPARING FOR COURT IS DOING SOMETHING THAT IS RELATED TO IT, GOING THROUGH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, SERVING SOMETHING, ALL OF THOSE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

THAT'S WHERE WE GET BACK TO THE LIST.

SHOW ME A LIST THAT IT'S SPECIFIC, USES THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH, THEN APPORTION LEGALLY CAN AND HAS IN THE PAST COME FROM THIS MILLAGE.

I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT.

BUT IF WE KNOW THAT ALL OF THE MONIES FOR THIS TASK FORCE CANNOT COME FROM THIS SOURCE, AND WE'RE JUST PLAYING A SHELL GAME TO MAKE IT LOOK OKAY, THAT'S WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM.

AND WITHOUT THE TRANSPARENCY OF A LIST OF ITEMS, JUST PUTTING MILLAGE DEDICATED MILLAGE MONEY INTO A GENERAL FUND WITHOUT FURTHER SPECIFICITY, WITHOUT FURTHER DOCUMENTATION AND TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC, THAT THESE ARE GOING TO BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MILLAGE.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE LACKING RIGHT NOW WITHOUT THAT DOCUMENTATION.

AND HAS THAT DOCUMENTATION BEEN PROVIDED AT ANY POINT I'VE ASKED FOR IT.

VERBALLY, I'VE ASKED FOR IT IN WRITING AND I'VE YET TO GET IT.

WAIT. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING SOMETHING HERE.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE WAS AN OBJECTION ABOUT THE USE OF THE THE FUNDS FOR THE TASK FORCE, AND WHEN THEY AND WHEN THEY MOVED THE, THE ITEM IN THE, IN THE BUDGET BACK AND PUT IT UNDER THE MILLAGE, THE THAT ORIGINALLY WAS GOING TO BE USED FOR THE TASK FORCE.

IT DIDN'T INVOLVE MOVING OF THAT MILLAGE TO THE TO THE GENERAL BULLET BUDGET.

IT REMOVED IT JUST REMOVED THE OBLIGATED SECTION OF THE GENERAL BUDGET AND AND IT WAS SENT BACK TO THE, TO THE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE, BUT THEY HAVEN'T THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY TRANSFER OF FUNDS HERE.

IT'S JUST A MOVEMENT OF OF AN ITEM THAT WAS BUDGETED FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.

AND WHEN IT WAS MOVED AND COVERED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE EVERYBODY'S SAYING THAT THAT'S PROPER.

SO ALL IT'S DONE IS IT'S FREED UP MONEY IN THE GENERAL BUDGET THAT CAN BE USED FOR THE TASK FORCE.

AND WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT HERE? I MEAN, IT'S IT'S IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF HIDING ANYTHING.

I THINK WITH THE, WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BROUGHT UP AND MR. AL, IF YOU'D MAKE WAY AT THE PODIUM FOR MISS CHATELAINE.

WAS THAT BY TAKING THE MONEY? I'LL LET YOU EXPLAIN IT, MISS CHATELAINE, BECAUSE IN YOUR LETTER.

AND I DON'T WANT TO MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT YOU SAID.

SO I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION FOR A WHILE, AND I WILL SAY THIS, THAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU.

NUMBER ONE, LET ME SAY THAT THIS ITEM AND THIS MONEY HAS BEEN ON OUR RADAR FOR PROBABLY ABOUT SIX MONTHS.

SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TIMING, BUT IT WAS ABOUT PUTTING FORTH A PRODUCT THAT COULD BE PREVENTATIVE VERSUS DEALING WITH A REPORT THAT WENT BACK AND AUTOPSIED EXPENDITURES THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE.

WHICH IS WE DO BOTH BOTH PREVENTION AND DETECTION.

I'VE HEARD SEVERAL PEOPLE COMMENT FROM THE DAIS ABOUT ARPA FUNDS.

YOU KNOW, WE ESSENTIALLY DID THIS SWAP WITH THE GENERAL FUND WITH ARPA FUNDS.

I WILL SAY THAT WE GOT A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT THE PARISH'S CHOICE TO APPROACH THE ARPA FUNDS IN THAT WAY.

I WILL TELL YOU, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY MY ANALYSIS WAS, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, IT WAS EITHER DO THE SWAP OR LOSE THE FEDERAL FUNDING BECAUSE WE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE EXPENDITURES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MANDATES FAST ENOUGH.

AND THE WAY WE WERE DOING IT WAS GOING TO GET US THROUGH THAT MOMENT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GREAT GOVERNMENT.

I THINK IT'S GOVERNMENT IN THE MOMENT.

FOR FUNDS THAT CAME TO US ONE TIME BECAUSE OF A TRAGEDY THAT AFFECTED OUR NATION.

THIS IS NOT THAT MILLAGE FUNDS COME FROM OUR CITIZENS, AND IT'S HOW WE FUND EVERYTHING IMPORTANT IN THE PARISH AND OUR OBLIGATION TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

[02:00:03]

ALL THOSE, QUOTE, UNFUNDED MANDATES THAT I LEARNED ABOUT WHEN I CAME TO THE PARISH.

THOSE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AROUND.

AND WHEN WE WENT TO THE VOTERS TO ASK FOR A ONE MIL AND A TWO AND A HALF MIL, PART OF WHICH WAS GOING TO FUND JUDICIAL SERVICES, THOSE UNFUNDED MANDATES WERE STILL ON THE BOOKS.

SO WHETHER THE VOTERS FULLY UNDERSTAND OR NOT THE DETAILS, THIS IS WHAT WE DID.

WE HAD UNFUNDED MANDATES TO THE DA.

LIKE THAT'S ALWAYS OUR THAT IS OUR OBLIGATION.

THAT'S JUST OUR OBLIGATION.

BUT WE WENT TO THE VOTERS AND SAID, VOTERS, PLEASE APPROVE THIS MILLAGE BECAUSE WE NEED THIS LITTLE EXTRA MONEY FOR JUDICIAL SERVICES RELATED TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

THAT'S WHAT WE TOLD THEM WE NEEDED THE MONEY FOR, AND THAT'S WHAT WE TOOK THE MONEY IN.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET, WHAT THE BUDGET PREVIOUSLY READ, DATING AS FAR BACK AS 2015 WAS THAT WE WERE PICKING OUT $90,000. OUT OF THIS DEDICATED MONEY, $90,000 WAS GOING TO THE MAJOR CRIME TASK FORCE.

THE BULK OF THE MONEY WAS GOING TO THE DA.

THAT MEANS WE'RE GIVING MONEY TO THE DA ON TOP OF OUR UNFUNDED MANDATE.

WE WERE STILL GIVING MONEY BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE IS DISCRETE NEEDS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED FOR THIS MILLAGE THAT WE'RE GIVING MONEY TO THE DA.

WE'RE ALSO GIVING MONEY TO PROCESS SERVERS OUT OF THIS FUND, WHICH MEANS AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY SAID THIS MONEY WAS NEEDED FOR THIS, AND NOW YOU'RE TAKING THE $90,000, WHICH MAYBE YOU COULD JUSTIFY GIVING, AND YOU'RE INCREASING IT TO $860,000.

THAT'S 18% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE GENERATED FOR THIS FUND IS NOW BEING DIVERTED TO THIS TASK FORCE THAT WHILE THEY MIGHT HAVE DISCRETE FUNCTIONS THAT CAN BE VALIDATED UNDER THIS, THEY LIKELY CANNOT HAVE $860 WORTH OF FUNCTIONS THAT ARE SOLELY RELATED TO JUDICIAL SERVICES FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

SO THAT IS THE REASON BEHIND THE LETTER.

IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO BE PREVENTATIVE AND TO CAUSE YOU TO GIVE CRITICAL THOUGHT TO BOTH WHY WE'RE SPENDING THIS MONEY, HOW WE'RE MOVING IT TO THE GENERAL FUND.

IT'S RESTRICTED IN NATURE.

AND HOW MANY TIMES IS THE COUNCIL GOING TO DO THIS? GOD BLESS. GOD RESTS BEFORE THE VOTERS.

STOP TRUSTING TO VOTE YES ON A MILLAGE, BECAUSE WE TELL THEM WE HAVE A DISCRETE NEED FOR IT.

IF THEY REALIZE OUR DISCRETE NEED IS TAKING DEDICATED MILLAGE FUND AND JUST THROWING IT INTO THE GENERAL FUND.

BUT WE'RE MISSING THE POINT HERE BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION THAT THAT THAT MILLAGE MONEY WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL BUDGET. IT WAS IT FREED UP MONEY IN THE GENERAL BUDGET WHEN THIS ITEM WAS TAKEN OUT OF IT.

SO THE ONLY QUESTION HERE IS, CAN THIS MONEY THAT FOR THE CRIMINAL MAJOR CRIMINAL TASK FORCE IS THAT PROPERLY FUNDED OUT OF THE GENERAL BUDGET? YES. MY LETTER SPECIFICALLY SAYS IF YOU WISH TO FUND THE MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE FROM GENERAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE, THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FINE.

BUT IF YOU'RE TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, WELL, THEY'RE NOT CLEARLY NOT.

THAT IS. NO, THAT'S WHAT'S ON THAT'S ON THE BUDGET.

THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA TODAY.

IT JUST IT JUST FREED UP MONEY IN THE GENERAL BUDGET.

OH, ABSOLUTELY.

HOW CAN YOU SAY COUNCILMAN? BECAUSE RESPECTFULLY, AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, WE PASSED AN AGREEMENT THAT AUTHORIZED $1 MILLION, UP TO $1 MILLION FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

THAT'S DONE WHAT WE SEE HERE AND WHAT I'M ASKING TO DEFER TO PULL OUT OF THIS SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THIS IS BEING DONE LEGALLY.

AND I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY ANY OF US FEEL LIKE THIS HAS TO MOVE FORWARD.

IF THERE ARE LEGAL QUESTIONS HANGING OVER THIS, LET'S PAUSE.

THIS IS SAYING CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND 22 530 $860,000, NOT THE 90,000 WE USED TO, BUT $860,000 IS BEING TRANSFERRED FROM THE RESTRICTED LEGAL FUND INTO THE GENERAL FUND WITHOUT ANY SPECIFICITY TO VOTERS ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO BE USED.

THAT'S MY OBJECTION.

IT'S NOT THE GENERAL FUND USE FOR THE TASK FORCE.

I'M ALL ABOUT THAT. I THINK THE TASK FORCE DOES GREAT WORK.

[02:05:01]

WHAT I'M EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT IS THE TRANSFER OF THE RESTRICTED MILLAGE MONEY TO THE GENERAL FUND, WITH NO SPECIFICS ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING TO BE USED. MY CONCERN IS WHAT SEPARATES JEFFERSON PARISH FROM OUR NEIGHBORING PARISHES IS THAT WE HAVE SPECIFIC POTS OF MONEY THAT WE SAY VOTERS, TRUST US.

PLEASE ALLOW US THIS AMOUNT OF YOUR TAX MONEY FOR THIS PURPOSE.

AND EVERY TEN YEARS WHEN WE GO TO THEM, WE CAN SAY, WE ASKED YOU FOR THIS FOR STREETS.

HERE ARE THE STREETS. WE DID.

WE ASKED YOU FOR THIS, FOR DRAINAGE.

HERE'S THE DRAINAGE.

WE DID. WE ASKED YOU FOR THIS FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE JUDICIAL JUDICIAL SERVICES OF OUR PARISH.

WE DID SOMETHING IN THE GENERAL FUND.

THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE NEED TO ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

IF ALL OF THIS CHECKS OUT LEGALLY AND THE SPECIFICS CAN BE PROVIDED, AND WE CAN HAVE ALL OF THAT ILLUSTRATED AND BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT IT, THEN THE PUBLIC DOESN'T HAVE TO QUESTION.

BUT AT THIS MOMENT, ALL THEY SEE ON THIS BUDGET IS THAT THE SPECIFIC MONIES THAT THEY WERE GUARANTEED WE WOULD ONLY USE FOR JUDICIAL SERVICES ARE GOING GENERALLY INTO THE BIG GENERAL FUND WITHOUT SPECIFIC USES DELINEATED.

AND THAT WE NOW ACKNOWLEDGE ON THE RECORD, IS A SHELL GAME TO TO GET MONEY TO THE TASK FORCE.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

NOT THE TASK FORCE, NOT ITS UTILITY, NOT THE GOOD WORK IT DOES TAKING SPECIFIC MONEY AND THROWING IT INTO THE GENERAL FUND.

I NEVER WANT TO SEE HAPPEN WITHOUT THE DOCUMENTED JUSTIFICATION THAT SAYS VOTERS.

HERE'S WHAT I'M DOING BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO TRUST ME AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH IT.

WE ARE NOT DOING THAT AT THIS MOMENT.

AND GOD FORBID, IF WE BECOME A PARISH WHERE VOTERS ARE SUSPICIOUS OF WHAT WE USE OUR MONIES FOR, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE NORTH SHORE, WHERE THEY CAN'T GET A MILLAGE PASSED FOR ANY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE BECAUSE THEIR VOTERS NOW ARE SO SUSPICIOUS.

THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC TRUST, AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT, AT THE VERY LEAST, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC TRUST THAT WE, AS STEWARDS OF THIS PARISH, WILL SIMPLY PRESS PAUSE ON THIS FOR, WHAT, TWO WEEK PERIOD? THREE WEEK PERIOD. WE'VE GOT A MEETING IN TWO WEEKS.

I AM ASKING THAT THIS PORTION BE REMOVED SO WE CAN GET ALL OUR DOCUMENTS IN ORDER, SHOW THE PUBLIC THAT OUR DOCUMENTS ARE IN ORDER AND THEY CAN STILL TRUST IT.

I TAKE THAT AS A MATTER OF GRAVE CONCERN.

THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR.

MAY I MAKE A COMMENT? TELL ME IF I'M WRONG? WAS THIS A MATTER OF MOVING MONEY FROM THE GENERAL BUDGET INTO THE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND OR OR DID WE MOVE MONEY TO THE GENERAL BUDGET TO COVER WHAT WE WERE DOING WITH IT? MAJOR TASK MONEY INTO THE GENERAL BUDGET.

WHY? HE LIKED IT TO COVER THINGS LIKE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHICH IS THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH IS 8.5 MILLION.

FIRST PARISH COURT $3.6 MILLION.

SECOND PARISH COURT $3.4 MILLION.

JUVENILE COURT $4.7 MILLION.

CORRECTIONS $10.7 MILLION.

CLEARLY MORE THAN $860,000.

THAT'S PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE MATTERS.

BUT YOU'RE STILL SAYING, TRUST ME, AND IT'LL GO TO SOME OF THOSE THINGS WITHOUT DOCUMENTING IT TO HIM.

THAT'S WHERE I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.

I HAVE NO DOUBT WE HAVE UNFUNDED MANDATES, BUT I'LL BET IF WE LOOK AT OUR BUDGET BOOKS, ALL OF THOSE UNFUNDED MANDATES WERE ALREADY COVERED IN THE GENERAL FUND, AND THE ONLY NEED FOR THIS SWAP IS TO DO A SHELL GAME TO PUT MONEY TOWARD A TASK FORCE, BECAUSE WE'RE NOW TAKING THAT FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS YOU LISTED, ARE THEY IN THE 2024 BUDGET BOOK ALREADY ALLOCATED AND COVERED BY THE GENERAL FUND? YES, YES.

THE ONLY REASON WE'RE DOING THIS IS TO SWAP SHELLS OF MONEY TO COVER SOMETHING.

WE JUST BLEW A HOLE IN THE GENERAL FUND BY PASSING BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT OUR HAND GOT SLAPPED.

PUTTING IT IN THE COOKIE JAR OF THIS FUND.

I HAVE NO DOUBT WE HAVE ENOUGH THINGS THAT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE LAW.

WHICH IS WHY I ASKED MONDAY, CAN YOU GIVE ME A LIST THAT COMPLIES WITH THE LAW? IF SO, WE HAVE NO ARGUMENT, BUT I'VE YET TO HAVE THAT LIST.

I'VE YET TO HAVE ANYTHING DOCUMENTED FOR THE PUBLIC THAT IT'S GOING TO BE USED APPROPRIATELY.

TRUST ME, IS NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO STAND ON WHEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DOCUMENT THIS.

WELL, IF I MAY, I THINK THAT IS A VERY UNFAIR ASSESSMENT.

IT'S WE'RE NOT SAYING, TRUST ME, DON'T WORRY.

DON'T LOOK, EVERY DOLLAR THAT IS SPENT IS VOTED ON.

IF WE ARE EXCEEDING WHAT THIS FUND COST AND WE'RE MOVING THE MONEY FROM THAT FUND TO COVER THE COSTS OUT OF OUR GENERAL BUDGET, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DO, THERE'S NO

[02:10:04]

SECRET WE'RE VOTING TO MOVE IT.

IT'S ON THE AGENDA.

PEOPLE CAN READ IT NEXT MONTH WHEN WE'RE VOTING TO TAKE SOMETHING FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SPEND, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE IT.

SO TO KEEP CALLING IT A SHELL GAME AND TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE PUBLIC TRUST IS BEING DONE BY US BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES WHO KEEP REPEATING IT.

THIS IS NOT A SHELL GAME.

THESE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE VOTED ON AND PUBLICIZED AND, AND AND DECIDED IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC.

THERE'S NOTHING HIDDEN HERE.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH IN YOUR GENERAL FUND TO COVER THE EXPENSES THAT WE ASK THE TAXPAYERS TO THE VOTERS TO GIVE US FOR THIS MILLAGE, AND WE REMOVE THE MONEY FROM THE MILLAGE FUND INTO THAT GENERAL BUDGET.

WE'RE STILL AT A DEFICIT FOR WHAT THAT MILLAGE COVERS.

SO THERE'S NO SECRET HERE.

COUNCILWOMAN HARAHAN. AND I THINK THE SECRET COMES IN IN THE FACT THAT WHEN THE 2024 BUDGET WAS PASSED, THAT CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND HAD A LINE ITEM OF 860.

SO IF THE MAJOR FUNDS TASK, IF THE MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE IS APPROPRIATELY FUNDED FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND, NO BUDGET AMENDMENT IS NEEDED.

THE MONEY WAS ALREADY THERE.

IF YOU'RE TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND TO PUT IT INTO THE GENERAL FUND, AND THE ARGUMENT IS WE HAVE OVER $40 MILLION OF UNFUNDED MANDATES, THERE'S NO REASON TO STOP AT $860,000.

YOU CAN JUST TAKE THE 4 MILLION, PUT IT INTO THE GENERAL FUND, AND JUST WRITE IT OFF AGAINST OUR UNFUNDED MANDATES TO THE DA. PROBLEM IS, IS THAT WHEN THIS MILLAGE GOES TO GET RENEWED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL THE VOTERS WE HAVE $40 MILLION OF UNFUNDED MANDATES.

SO PLEASE GIVE US AN EXTRA 4 MILLION TO HELP OFFSET IT.

AND THAT'S THE THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE TOLD THE VOTERS.

WE WE SOLD THEM THAT THIS MONEY WAS GOING TO SOMETHING DISCREET.

AND WE CAN'T SAY IT'S DISCREET AND IT'S ENTIRELY OBVIOUSLY WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION.

BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO INDIRECTLY WHAT WE ARE NOT CHOOSING TO DO DIRECTLY.

THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED IN THE 2024 BUDGET.

AND SO IF WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT, IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT, THEN YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

BUT INARGUABLY THAT'S THE FACTS.

IT'S EIGHT 60 IN THE 2024 BUDGET.

SO IF IT'S OKAY, YOU DON'T NEED A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

IF IT'S NOT OKAY, THEN THAT SHOULD MAKE THE BUDGET AMENDMENT QUESTIONABLE OR SUBJECT TO SOME MORE CRITICAL THOUGHT.

BUT THEN YOU COULD SAY THAT ABOUT EVERY SINGLE BUDGET AMENDMENT YOU GET.

I MEAN, IF I DIDN'T DECIDE WHAT MY DISTRICT NEEDED MY FIRST DAY AND IT WASN'T IN THE BUDGET, AND I DECIDED TO MOVE FUNDS FROM ONE TO ANOTHER TO TO COVER EXPENSES THAT HAVE THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, BECOME PROBLEMATIC IN MY DISTRICT, THEN I SHOULD HAVE PLANNED FOR THAT BEFORE.

THIS PARISH IS AN EVER MOVING BODY, OKAY? IT CHANGES EVERY DAY.

WE HAVE THINGS HAPPEN EVERY DAY.

AND YOU KNOW, THIS TASK FORCE HAS INCREASED IN WHAT IT HAS NEEDED.

AND SO WE SAW THAT NEED AND WE INCREASED THEIR BUDGET FOR THAT.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.

I THINK THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TIMING OF IT, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT THIS WHOLE 860,000 IS GOING TO COVER THIS TASK FORCE, AND WE'RE HIDING IT BY MOVING IT INTO THE GENERAL. THERE'S NO SECRET WE SPEND MORE MONEY THAT QUALIFIES FOR THE MILLAGE FUND THAN WE HAVE.

SO MOVING THIS INTO THE GENERAL FUND IS NOT A SLEIGHT OF THE HANDS.

IT'S NOT A SHELL GAME.

IT'S ON THE AGENDA.

THERE'S NOTHING HIDDEN.

AND IF YOU WANT A LIST OF THE EXPENSES, GRAB THE BUDGET.

THEY'RE ALL LISTED IN THERE.

WE KNOW WHERE THE DOLLAR IS GOING NOW.

EVERY MEETING ON THE AGENDA, YOU'LL SEE WHERE WE'VE MOVED FUNDS AND WHERE WE'VE HAD TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS AND SOME CHANGES.

BUT THERE'S NOTHING SECRET GOING ON.

AND TO KEEP REFERRING TO IT AS, AS LIKE THERE'S SOME HIDING OF SOMETHING OR SOME SLIDING OF THE HANDS.

IT'S JUST NOT THE CASE.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH IN THE GENERAL BUDGET THAT WOULD COVER WHAT THE MILLAGE COVERS.

IF WE TAKE EVERY DOLLAR OUT OF THAT MILLAGE, WE STILL DON'T HAVE ENOUGH.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH MOVING THAT MILLAGE MONEY INTO THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER THINGS LIKE THE THE COURTHOUSE, THE JUVENILE COURT, OVER 40 MILLION OF EXPENSES THAT WERE JUST READ OFF TO US.

SO I YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ARGUING WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DEFER AND INVESTIGATE IT MORE WHEN I'M ARGUING ABOUT IS IS PRESENTING IT TO THE PUBLIC AS IF THERE'S SOMETHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON.

THERE'S A SLIDING OF THE HANDS.

THERE'S A SHELL GAME, THERE'S NO SHELL GAME, THERE'S NO SHELL GAME.

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE ON THE AGENDA.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A BUDGET BOOK THIS THICK, YOU KNOW, THAT EXPLAINS WHAT EVERY DOLLAR GOES TO.

IT'S NOT LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION HAS A CHECKBOOK AND THEY'RE JUST WRITING CHECKS OUT.

[02:15:01]

THERE'S NO SECRET BUT THE LETTER, I MIGHT ADD THAT THE IN THE BUDGET BOOK IS THE $4.1 MILLION THAT KIM WAS REFERRING TO THAT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU RAISE ABOUT 4.8 MILLION INCHES THE MILLAGE.

4.1 WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND.

IT'S DOCUMENTED. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR, BUT THAT'S COUNCILWOMAN.

CAN YOU LOOK AT THIS BUDGET AND TELL ME WHERE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUNDS WILL BE USED? NO, THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

OH, IT IS THE POINT BECAUSE THEY'RE RESTRICTED.

AND IF THE VOTER CAN'T SEE WHERE THEY'RE GOING AND THAT IT'S LEGAL.

NO, NO, NO, THIS IS JUST TELL ME WHERE THEY'RE GOING IN THE GENERAL FUND.

HOW WILL THEY BE USED? COUNCILMAN WALKER, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE.

I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LACKING.

NO, BECAUSE WHEN THAT MONEY COMES OUT, WE VOTE ON IT.

AND EACH AGENDA, WE VOTE ON THESE AMENDMENTS WHERE THOSE DOLLARS ARE GOING.

SO YOU MIGHT NOT SEE IT IN THE BUDGET BOOK.

EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR WHERE IT'S GOING.

BUT WHEN WE VOTE ON THEM AT THE MEETINGS, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY'RE GOING.

YOU DO SEE WHERE THE BUDGET, YOU SEE WHERE SOME OF THEM GO.

YES. YOU CAN'T CHANGES.

IT'S EVOLVING. AND ARE WE IS OUR STORY TO THE PUBLIC THAT THIS IS PURE COINCIDENCE, THAT WE'RE MOVING EIGHT 60 FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND THAT FIGURE'S ACCIDENTAL.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE TASK FORCE IS ASKING FOR EIGHT 60 MORE.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? I SAY WE TELL THE PUBLIC THE TRUTH.

THAT'S WHAT I'M THAT THAT THE GENERAL THAT THE GENERAL BUDGET OPERATES AT A DEFICIT FOR THE THINGS THAT ARE COVERED IN THIS MILLAGE.

AND IF WE MOVE IT THIS MONTH, NEXT WEEK, NEXT, YOU KNOW, IN SIX MONTHS, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

LOOK, HERE'S THE HERE'S THE STICKING POINT FOR ME.

AND I THINK ON A VERY BASIC LEVEL, THIS IS WHAT WHAT JUMPS OUT AT ME.

SO IN THE PAST WE'VE SAID $90,000 ARE APPLICABLE EXPENSES FOR THIS MILLAGE FUND TO THE MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE.

NOW WE'RE AT EIGHT 60, WHICH IS MOSTLY SALARIES.

AND WE KNOW THAT THAT MILLAGE MONEY CANNOT BE USED FOR SALARIES, FOR INSTANCE.

THAT'S WHAT A BIG CHUNK OF THAT EIGHT 60 IS.

SO THAT'S WHERE THE GAP IS FOR ME WITH THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION THAT WE'RE SEEING, LIKE, OKAY, WE HAD 90, BUT NOW WE'RE AT EIGHT 60 SO WHERE IS THAT GAP BEING FILLED? AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT NOBODY'S ANSWERING TODAY, MR. LACHUTE. SO JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION AND REFERENCE ON PAGE 33 OF THE BUDGET BOOK, THERE ARE IT IS ARTICULATED THE STATE MANDATED FUNCTIONS AS TO WHICH MR..

MR.. PALMATIER JUST REFERENCED.

SO THAT FIGURE IS GOING TO BE REDUCED BY EIGHT 60.

WHICH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE WILL OFFSET.

SO THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING TO GO TO OFFSET THOSE, THOSE MANDATED COSTS.

BUT RESPECTFULLY, IN THE BUDGET BOOK, ALL OF THOSE MANDATES WERE PAID FOR IN THE GENERAL FUND.

AND IT'S ONLY BECAUSE OF A DEFICIT IN THE CRIME TASK FORCE THAT WE'RE NEEDING TO MOVE THIS MONEY.

CORRECT. THOSE EXPENSES WERE PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY HAD TO BE PAID FROM.

CORRECT. SO THE MONEY THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE IS ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR IS GOING TO OFFSET THOSE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS, WHICH FREES UP THE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS TO BE USED FOR THE CRIME TASK FORCE.

AND ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS CLOSE THE LOOP AND SHOW THAT MILLAGE MONIES ARE GOING TO BE USED APPROPRIATELY.

THERE'S NOTHING DOCUMENTING THAT ON THIS AGENDA.

IT'S JUST GOING GENERALLY INTO THE GENERAL FUND.

BUT ONCE THAT ACCOUNT, THE GENERAL FUND IS REALLOCATED, IT'LL BE REFLECTED LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD IN IN THE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS IN THE 400.

CAN WE ALL AGREE THAT THERE'S NOT AN URGENCY TO MAKE THIS BUDGET MOVE NOW? BECAUSE THE CRIME TASK FORCE AGREEMENT HAS PASSED THE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS? ARE THERE CERTAINLY TO GET THAT PROCESS STARTED AND TO KEEP IT IN OPERATION, AND THAT WE CAN SIT DOWN WITH OUR INSPECTOR GENERAL, WITH OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR, WITH OUR PARISH ATTORNEY, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOCUMENTING THAT THE MILLAGE MONEY WILL GO TO APPROPRIATE USES.

IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO DO THAT? THE BUDGET AMENDMENT WAS PUT FORTH BY THE COUNCIL, SO THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

ALL RIGHT. ARE WE READY TO MOVE FORWARD THEN? IS THAT ENOUGH TO START? ENOUGH DISCUSSION, MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, SIR. JUST TO THE AMENDMENTS COMING FROM THE FLOOR.

ALL RIGHT, WELL, IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS.

SO THEN THAT ONE WON'T COME FROM THE FLOOR.

BUT WE HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE TAKE THE MOTION ON THAT AMENDMENT.

RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY. GO AHEAD.

MR.. AL AL MORELLA, 4260 EAST ROYAL DRIVE, FIFTH DISTRICT.

KENNER FOURTH DISTRICT, UNINCORPORATED JEFFERSON.

52 YEARS.

I GOT A POINT OF CLARIFICATION HERE.

NOW, DON'T WE HAVE A PROVISION IN OUR CHARTER THAT ANY BUDGET SURPLUS AND ANY DEPARTMENT IN THIS PARISH HAS TO BE RETURNED TO THE GENERAL FUND?

[02:20:02]

THAT'S THE FIRST POINT OF MY CLARIFICATION.

THE SECOND THING IS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE MONEY FROM A DEDICATED MILLAGE AND YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE IT AROUND, THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT THAT MILLAGE HAS A SURPLUS.

NOW, YOU COULD BE IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW BECAUSE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, DOESN'T STATE LAW SAY THAT IF A MILLAGE CREATES A SURPLUS THAT HAS TO BE ROLLED BACK? AND NOBODY MENTIONED THESE TWO THINGS.

THAT'S WHY I'M UP HERE FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

AM I CORRECT OR AM I WRONG? ANYBODY CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY.

I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT.

ANYBODY GOT ANY COMMENTS? ANY QUESTIONS? I'M NOT AWARE OF SUCH A PROVISION, BUT MIGHT BE MISCHARACTERIZATION TO SAY THERE'S A SURPLUS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE AND THERE'S A DEFICIT IN FUNDING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND THE MILLAGE MONEY WOULD BE USED TO OFFSET THAT DEFICIT.

WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE MONEY FROM THAT MILLAGE, THAT WOULD MEAN YOU GOT A SURPLUS.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE MONEY FROM THAT MILLAGE.

YOU EITHER HAVE A SURPLUS OR EITHER YOU SHORTENING SHORT, CHANGING THAT DEDICATED MILLAGE, EITHER 1 OR 2.

IT CAN'T BE NOTHING BUT EITHER ONE OR THE TWO.

AND IF IT'S A SURPLUS, THAT'S A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.

AND I'M PRETTY SURE WE HAVE A PROVISION IN OUR CHARTER, LIKE EVERY MUNICIPALITY JUST ABOUT HAS THAT ANY SURPLUS GENERATED BY A DEPARTMENT BUDGET SURPLUS HAS TO BE RETURNED TO THE GENERAL FUND.

RIGHT NOW, IF I'M WRONG, I STAND FOR CORRECTION.

ANYBODY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU. PEGGY HIRES.

WHAT'S A SHELL GAME? WHAT IS A SHELL GAME? RIGHT? I GUESS WE CAN DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

WELL, IF YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND HOW ANY OF THESE WERE WHAT THE WORD MEANS, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THE WORD MILLAGE.

THEN THE WHOLE THING IS A SHELL GAME, TO BE CERTAIN.

CAN'T EXPLAIN HOW THE POWER IS DISTRIBUTED TO EVEN VOTE ON ANY OF THESE THINGS.

IT'S A SHELL GAME.

NOBODY'S CULPABLE OF COMMITTING THIS SHELL GAME.

THIS ISN'T TO BLAME SOMEBODY.

TRUST ME, THERE'S NO CLEAN HANDS IN THIS ONE.

WHERE THE SHELL GAME IS ON THIS IS THAT VOTERS APPROVED A MILLAGE WHICH THEY DIDN'T COMPREHEND.

AND YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT MONEY TO FILL A GAP.

AND I WATCHED THESE GAPS GET FILLED ALL THE TIME.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR THE TWO FORENSIC EVALUATIONS, THE JUVENILE FORENSIC EVALUATIONS, 400,000 FOR TWO YEARS FOR TWO GUYS I'VE SEEN YOU SPEND ALL THIS MONEY, YOU WILL FIND A WAY TO LEGITIMIZE THIS TRANSFER OF OUR TAX DOLLARS.

AND THE PEOPLE CANNOT COMPREHEND IT.

SO THEY'RE NOT APPROVING ANYTHING.

THEY DON'T COMPREHEND ANY OF THIS.

THAT'S WHY IT'S ABSOLUTELY A SHELL GAME.

WE CAN SEE IT. WE CAN SMELL IT.

IT'S RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF US.

YEAH. YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR IT.

YOU'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH ALL KINDS OF CROTCHETS AND INGENUITY TO JUSTIFY THIS TRANSFERENCE.

YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT FROM THE BACK TO THE FRONT.

YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK.

IT'S ALL GOING TO GO FROM THIS FUND TO THAT FUND.

AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS AT A DEFICIT.

HOW IS IT A DEFICIT? IT'S AN UNFUNDED MANDATE.

THAT MEANS WE GOT TO PAY FOR IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO PAY FOR IT.

SO WE JUST GOT TO TAX OURSELVES FOR IT.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT SALES TAXES ARE FOR.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SALES TAXES DO.

THEY TAKE CARE OF THE UNFUNDED MANDATES.

AND IF YOU NEED MORE MONEY, RAISE THE SALES TAX.

YOU DON'T SCOOT IT AWAY FROM A DISCRETIONARY FUND THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT AND SEE EVERY DOLLAR WHERE IT WENT TO.

IT'S A DISCRETIONARY FUND DISCRETION.

AND IF YOU DON'T NEED IT, GIVE IT BACK TO US, GIVE IT BACK TO US.

DECLARE THAT THE MILLAGE SHOULD BE REDUCED.

WE BUDGET FOR THE COSTS.

AND I'VE HAD TO READ THAT BUDGET AND I UNDERSTAND WHY IT GOES FROM 90,000 800,000.

I CAN SPEAK TO IT DIRECTLY.

IT'S THE PONZI SCHEME, PENSION PLANS THAT ARE PAYING FOR PEOPLE, GETTING PAID TOO MUCH FOR DOING TOO LITTLE, WHILE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY WORKING FOR A LIVING, THE ONES THAT ARE WORKING HARDEST FOR THAT MONEY, ARE THE ONES THAT I SEE ON MY HOME BOULEVARD DEALING WITH THE TOTALED AMBULANCE.

BECAUSE YOU ALL CAN'T FIGURE OUT THAT RECKLESS DRIVING IS A THING.

THOSE FIRST RESPONDERS THAT I DEAL WITH FIRSTHAND THAT ARE UNDERPAID, MOVING TO ANY OTHER PARISH THEY CAN GET TO WITH THEIR QUALIFICATIONS AS FIRST RESPONDERS BECAUSE THEY CAN GET PAID EVERYWHERE ELSE BETTER THAN THEY CAN HERE.

[02:25:03]

IT'S A PONZI SCHEME SHELL GAME.

IF YOU DON'T THINK WE CAN SEE IT AND SMELL IT FOR WHAT IT IS, WAKE UP.

ROMANS 13 LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE ME.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? FIGURE THIS STUFF OUT.

GET TIRED. LUNCH.

ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION? I'M SORRY. WAS THAT IN FAVOR? I LOST TRACK. I WAS IN FAVOR.

ANYBODY? ANYBODY ELSE IN FAVOR? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION.

AND, MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT ONE APPEARED IN FAVOR.

MOVE. I THINK WE HAVE TO.

WE HAVE TO VOTE ON YOUR AMENDMENT FIRST BEFORE WE GET TO THE REST.

REJECTING COUNCILMAN EDWARDS IS OBJECTING FROM FOR IT FROM COMING FROM THE FLOOR.

SO I DON'T BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT CAN BE ENTERTAINED.

WHAT I WOULD ASK AT THIS TIME IS THAT IF THIS IS MOVING FORWARD WITH INCLUDING THE BUDGET ITEM THAT WILL TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE INTO THE GENERAL FUND, I'D ASK FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS ITEM.

IT'S A ROLL CALL. VOTE ON THE BUDGET ON ITEM 21 WITH AMENDMENTS AS AMENDED.

WAIT, I THOUGHT THE AMENDMENT COULDN'T.

IT'S NOT IN THERE.

HER AMENDMENT IS NOT. IT'S THE THE ENTIRE ITEM NUMBER 21 WITH ALL THE AMENDMENTS.

SO ITEM 21 WITH THE MOVE WE WE MOVED ON THE AMENDMENTS.

THIS IS SIMPLY TAKING ITEM 21.

THAT DOES INCLUDE MOVING MONEY FROM THE RESTRICTED CRIMINAL JUSTICE MILLAGE INTO THE GENERAL FUND THAT IS INCLUDED IN HERE.

THAT IS WHAT I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD.

SO I'M ASKING FOR A VOTE ON THIS ITEM BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THIS.

AND TO BE CLEAR, MADAM CLERK, FOR THE RECORD, TO TAKE A ROLL CALL, VOTE ON ITEM 21 WITH AMENDMENTS WITH THE FIRST THREE AMENDMENTS.

IF THIS DOES NOT PASS ALL THE AMENDMENTS ON THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THIS MEETING, FAIL.

RIGHT? SO WE HAD ALREADY VOTED, BUT WE CAN GO BACK AND REVOTE.

NO, WE VOTED ON THE WE VOTED ON THE AMENDMENTS.

WE DIDN'T VOTE ON ITEM 21.

WE'RE VOTING ON THE ITEM AS AMENDED.

BUT THE MONEY FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND MOVING TO THE GENERAL FUND IS STILL IN HERE, WHICH IS WHY I'M ASKING FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.

THANK YOU. I KNOW IT'S BEEN CONFUSING, LIZBETH.

THAT'S OKAY. IS THERE, MADAM PARISH ATTORNEY, IS EVERYBODY CLEAR? WE WENT THROUGH AND WE VOTED ON THE.

WE VOTED ON THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY WERE READ.

AND THEN COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN ADDED IT TRIED TO ADD AN AMENDMENT WHICH WAS REJECTED.

AND NOW WE HAVE TO VOTE ON ITEM 21 AS AMENDED, MINUS HER AMENDMENT.

CORRECT? RIGHT. CORRECT. WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE WERE.

YEAH, RIGHT. THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY THERE BEFORE SHE TRIED TO DO HER AMENDMENT.

CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY.

EVERYBODY'S CLEAR.

YES. AND NOW COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN HAS CALLED FOR A ROLL CALL.

VOTE ON ITEM 21, AS AMENDED, WITH THE ORIGINAL THREE AMENDMENTS, THE ORIGINAL THREE AMENDMENTS TO.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, SAY AGAIN, WE READ THE THREE AMENDMENTS.

JUST TO BE CLEAR.

YES. WHY DON'T YOU LET'S READ ITEM 21 WITH THE THREE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'D BE VOTING ON IN THE ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

OKAY. SO SUMMARY NUMBER 26307 AMENDING THE 2024 OPERATING BUDGET.

AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO TRANSFER $370,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND HEAD START GRANTS TO THE GENERAL FUND ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT TO FUND VARIOUS ACCOUNTING PROJECTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE ERP IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION COUNCIL AT LARGE.

A AT THE REQUEST OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO ALLOCATE $20,000 FROM COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE WEST BANK RIVERBOAT GAMING FUND FOR A CEA WITH THE JEFFERSON PARISH FINANCE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDING FOR THE NEW ORLEANS EDUCATION LEAGUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE A RESIDENTIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

TO REVITALIZE THE HOUSING STOCK OF THE TARRYTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROMOTE FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE TO ALLOCATE $20,000 FROM AT LARGE AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR A CEA WITH THE JEFFERSON PARISH FINANCE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDING FOR THE NEW ORLEANS EDUCATION LEAGUE OF A OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE A RESIDENTIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

TO REVITALIZE THE HOUSING STOCK OF THE TARRYTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROMOTE FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

COUNCIL AT LARGE. A AND THAT'S ALL THE AMENDMENTS.

OKAY, OKAY.

NOW, THOSE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN VOTED ON PRIOR, AND NOW COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN IS CALLING FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE ON ITEM 21, AS AMENDED.

OKAY. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS.

YES. COUNCILMAN BONANO.

YES. COUNCILMAN.

WALKER. NO. COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, I AM GOING TO ALWAYS ON THE SIDE OF TRANSPARENCY, CAUTION, AND PUBLIC TRUST AND VOTE

[02:30:02]

NO. COUNCILWOMAN BOHANON, THIS IS AN ACCOUNTING ISSUE, NOT A LEGAL ISSUE.

I'M VOTING YES.

COUNCILMAN ROSENBERG.

YES. AND THE MOTION PASSES.

ALL RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT TIME TO BREAK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE'RE ABOUT 20 MINUTES LATE FOR THAT.

NO, LET'S COME BACK AND DO THE REST LATER.

WE WILL GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

READ THOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS, PLEASE.

MADAM CLERK, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNCIL TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LEGAL MATTERS CONCERNING THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED THE PARIS OF JEFFERSON VERSUS AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION, USDC, EDLA, NUMBER TWO, 18 CV 06343 KWP. NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIOID LITIGATION, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER 117, MD 2804, JEFFERSON PARISH.

NUMBER 18, OP 45885.

JEFFERSON PARISH.

I'M SORRY. HOSPITAL SERVICE, DISTRICT ONE, LOUISIANA.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

REFERENCE NUMBER C, L394134 JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE.

WE HAVEN'T ADJOURNED YET. CAN WE HAVE QUIET IN THE CHAMBERS, PLEASE, SO THAT MADAM CLERK CAN READ THESE ITEMS? DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, LOUISIANA, REFERENCE NUMBER CL 394132.

MOVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN.

SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

HEARING NONE. NUMBER THREE, PLEASE.

MADAM CLERK, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNCIL TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LEGAL MATTERS CONCERNING A WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM FOR DONNA RUSSO.

I'M SORRY. RUSSO CMCI CLAIM NUMBER 18994578012.

AND COUNCILWOMAN.

VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION ON THAT MOVE.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION? A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

WE ARE NOW IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER.

FOR? MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU READ THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM, PLEASE? OOPS. YOU CAN'T DO IT UNLESS I TURN ON YOUR MIC.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SETTLEMENT IN A WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM FOR DONNA RIZZO, CMCI CLAIM NUMBER 81899578012, AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION ON THAT RESOLUTION.

THERE IT IS. MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION? RESOLUTION ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

WE LEFT OFF AT NUMBER 22.

THE CAPITAL BUDGET.

PLEASE READ THAT WITH AMENDMENTS, MADAM CLERK.

SUMMARY NUMBER 26308.

AMENDING THE 2024 CAPITAL BUDGET IN THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO ALLOCATE $20,000 FROM AT LARGE BUKEDEA GENERAL FUND FOR A CEA WITH THE JEFFERSON PARISH AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDING FOR THE NEW ORLEANS EDUCATION LEAGUE AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE A RESIDENTIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

TO REVITALIZE THE HOUSING STOCK OF TARRYTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROMOTE FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

COUNCIL AT LARGE.

BE. AND THAT'S ALL THE AMENDMENTS.

I HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENT BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR? HEARING NONE. COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT AMENDMENT? A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

[OTHER ORDINANCES (Part 2 of 2)]

NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUMMARY NUMBER 26308.

ANYONE OPPOSED? THANK YOU. I'M NOT TRYING TO SPARK ANY CURIOSITY ON THIS.

I DON'T WANT TO DISCOURSE.

I JUST OPPOSES THE JEFFERSONIAN.

ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE APPROVAL OF SUMMARY NUMBER 26308 ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

THAT TAKES US TO 23 RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MADAM CLERK.

COUNCILWOMAN BOHANAN.

YES, MA'AM. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION TO NEW ORLEANS TRACK CLUB INCORPORATED, 201 EVANS ROAD, SUITE 101 B, TO SERVE BEER, BEVERAGE AND FOOD AT THEIR UPCOMING NOTC SUMMER SERIES AT LAVENIR PARK ON THE FOLLOWING THURSDAYS, MAY 30TH, 2024, JUNE 20TH, 2024 AND JULY 25TH, 2024 FROM 4 P.M.

UNTIL 8 P.M.

AND TO ALLOW DJ AMPLIFIED OUTDOOR MUSIC UNTIL 8 P.M.

ON THE DATES LISTED ABOVE, PROVIDED ALL PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED.

ANY OBJECTION THAT RESOLUTION BE BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR?

[02:35:01]

HEARING NONE, WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT RESOLUTION.

ANYONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

[RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS FROM THE FLOOR]

MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED COUNCILWOMAN BOHANAN MOVE TO APPROVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION.

BROUGHT FORWARD A MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN BOHANAN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

COUNCILMAN ROSENBERG, I HAVE TWO.

YES, SIR. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DOSE HEIFETS TORTA TORTILLERIA AND GRILL, LLC, LOCATED AT 3224 EDENBORN AVENUE TO HOLD A CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION ON SATURDAY, MAY 4TH, 2024 AND SUNDAY, MAY 5TH, 2024, FROM 3 P.M. UNTIL 10 P.M..

GRANTING PERMISSION TO PLACE SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS TO ADVERTISE THEIR CINCO DE MAYO CELEBRATION AND OBJECTION THAT RESOLUTION BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR.

HEARING NONE, WE NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT RESOLUTION.

ANYONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED COUNCILMAN.

LUXEMBOURG. MOVE TO APPROVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION.

BROUGHT FORWARD A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN LILJENBERG, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

A RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE SS DEVELOPMENT, LLC TO SELL BEER, WINE, LIQUOR, BEVERAGES AND FOOD AT THEIR UPCOMING LIVE MUSIC CELEBRATION ON SATURDAY, MAY 25TH, 2024, FROM 8 P.M.

UNTIL 11 P.M.

AT 2918 METAIRIE ROAD.

TO HAVE LIVE MUSIC AND ERECT ONE CANOPY, PROVIDED THAT THE PARISH NOISE ORDINANCE IS OBSERVED IN ALL CASES.

ANY OBJECTION THAT RESOLUTION BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR.

HEARING NONE, WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT RESOLUTION.

ANYONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD. MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED.

COUNCILMAN LUXEMBURG MOVED TO APPROVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION.

BROUGHT FORWARD A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN LUXEMBOURG, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, I BELIEVE I HAVE ONE.

YES, SIR. A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE JEFFERSON PARISH CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO SUPPORT AN ENDEAVOR TO HAVE ENACTED FISCAL YEAR 2025 APPROPRIATIONS FOR EVALUATION OF LEVIED LIFTS FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE WEST BANK AND VICINITY PROJECT, A PART OF THE HURRICANE STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION SYSTEM, TO PROVIDE THE REQUISITE FUNDING TO DE-WATER AND MAKE ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS TO THE WEST.

CLOSURE COMPLEX IN HARVEY CANAL COMPLEX, AN OBJECTION THAT RESOLUTION BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR.

HEARING NONE, WE NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT RESOLUTION.

ANYONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

MADAM CLERK. NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED.

COUNCILMAN EDWARDS MOVED TO APPROVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION.

BROUGHT FORWARD A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

COUNCILMAN BONANO I HAVE SEVERAL, MADAM CLERK, BEFORE YOU READ THEM, JUST QUICKLY, YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR TWO RESOLUTIONS ASKING OUR LEGISLATURE, OUR LEGISLATORS, TO OPPOSE TWO BILLS THAT ARE VERY DETRIMENTAL TO JEFFERSON PARISH.

ONE WOULD ALLOW THE STATE OF LOUISIANA TO BUILD FACILITIES IN JEFFERSON PARISH AND IGNORE OUR ZONING LAWS.

SO I DON'T NEED TO REMIND YOU, WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED THE BRIDGE CITY YOUTH DETENTION CENTER THAT THE STATE WANTS TO TEAR DOWN.

THEY'VE ALREADY TOLD ME TO BUILD A NEW ONE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN LOUISIANA.

CAN YOU IMAGINE THE STATE HAVING THE ABILITY TO BUILD THAT ANYWHERE THEY WANT IN JEFFERSON PARISH? THE SECOND BILL GUTS THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE LIFE SAFETY INSPECTIONS AND THE HANDICAP REQUIREMENTS, AND PUT THAT BURDEN ON THE JEFFERSON ON THE BACKS OF JEFFERSON PARISH TAXPAYERS AND ALL THE TAXPAYERS AND ALL THE PARISHES IN THE STATE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEING PAID FOR BY THE STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL.

SO GO AHEAD, MA'AM. PLEASE READ THEM.

YES, SIR. A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE JEFFERSON PARISH LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION OPPOSE SENATE BILL NUMBER 489 OF THE 2024 REGULAR SESSION, WHICH WOULD SHIFT EXISTING AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL TO LOCAL FIRE PREVENTION BUREAUS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

AND THE OBJECTION THAT RESOLUTION BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR.

HEARING NONE, WE NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

AL MORELLA 42 60 EAST LOYOLA DRIVE, FIFTH DISTRICT.

KENNER FOURTH DISTRICT.

UNINCORPORATED JEFFERSON 52 YEARS.

I SUPPORT IT.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION.

COUNCILMAN. BONANO.

THAT'S WHY THEY CALL IT A STATE FIRE MARSHAL, NOT A JEFFERSON PARISH FIRE MARSHAL.

STATE FIRE MARSHAL.

SO I TOLD YOU EARLIER THAT DYSFUNCTIONAL AND THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CONCERNED WITH.

THEY'RE NOT. OKAY, BUT I GOT SOME MORE TO SAY AT THE END.

ANYBODY GOT ANY COMMENTS? ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. IT'S SO NICE TO BE ABLE TO GET TWICE IN ONE DAY.

I'M IN FAVOR, YOU KNOW.

AND THIS IS WHERE MR. BONANO. WE WE COULDN'T BE MORE ALIGNED IN A WAY THAT I APPRECIATE.

AND, YOU KNOW I COMPLIMENT YOU.

I APPRECIATE YOU.

IT'S DEPLORABLE.

WE HAVE TO THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS APPEAL TO ME.

THIS IS WHAT DREW ME INTO THIS STATE AND AND PARISH GOVERNMENT CONCERNS DIRECTLY.

IS THAT AS A DELEGATION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THIS.

[02:40:04]

IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, IF WE GET ANY SLIVER OF IT, IT'S GOING TO BE HAVING SOME LITTLE THING WRAPPED IN THERE SO THAT SOMEHOW THE STATE INTEREST OF LOUISIANA ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF JUKE JEFFERSON PARISH.

AND TYPICALLY IT'S DONE WITH AN EXTRA JUKING TO OUR NEIGHBOR, OUR DELEGATION THAT WE'RE APPEALING TO.

OF SEVEN SENATORS THAT THAT REPRESENT PART OF JEFFERSON PARISH, FOUR OF THEM BEHOLD IT TO OUR BETRAYING SENATE DISTRICT NINE.

I RAN FOR BETRAYING 30 40,000 PEOPLE IN ORLEANS PARISH ARE TRYING TO SPEAK FOR TWO OF THEM, SERVING TWO MASTERS.

ONLY ONE.

ONLY ONE SENATOR, YOUR SENATOR, ONLY ONE SENATE.

DISTRICT TEN ONLY SERVES JEFFERSON PARISH.

THAT SINK IN.

WE'RE HAVING TO BEG THE STATE TO DO SOMETHING.

THEY'RE ALREADY OBLIGED TO NOT DO SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE ALREADY OBLIGED TO DO.

WE PAY FOR EVERY STATE FIRE MARSHAL.

WE'RE PAYING FOR ALL OF IT. WE'RE THE ONE WHO CONTRIBUTES THE MOST AND IN SALES TAX TO THE STATE.

SO, EVERYTHING THE STATE PAYS FOR.

ALREADY WE'RE PAYING MORE FOR EVERY OTHER PARISH.

SO, WHEN IT COMES TO THE FIRE.

STATE FIRE MARSHALS. WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR EVERY STATE FIRE MARSHAL IN GOD KNOWS HOW MANY OF THE PARISHES, US AND EAST BATON ROUGE AND SAINT TAMMANY AND ORLEANS, THE FOUR BIGGEST PARISHES WITH THE BIGGEST TAX REVENUE.

WE'RE PAYING FOR EVERYTHING AND GETTING JUKED MADE.

GETTING JUKE MADE ENEMIES OF EACH OTHER.

THESE REPRESENTATIVES FORCED TO SERVE AS MANY AS FIVE MASTERS IN THE HOUSE, HE GOT TWO HOUSE DISTRICT MEMBERS, SERVING FIVE MASTERS.

THIS DELEGATION IN OUR HOUSE, ONLY SEVEN OUT OF THE 11, ONLY SERVED JEFFERSON PARISH.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET ANYTHING MORE THAN TOKEN GESTURE OR LIP SERVICE? I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS.

I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS MR. BONANO I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS.

I APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS.

YOU WANT TO BE GOVERNOR, MAN, I GOT YOUR BACK.

COME ON, MAN, LET'S GO REWRITE THIS CONSTITUTION IN A WAY THAT THAT ACTUALLY GETS TO A JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

WE COULD DO IT. I RESPECTFULLY DECLINE THAT OFFER.

ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION? MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT TWO APPEARED IN FAVOR.

COUNCILMAN. BONANO? MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION? BROUGHT FORWARD A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BONANO, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

HEARING NONE SO ORDERED A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO THE LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 33 2536.2, APPROVING THE ANNUAL SALARY OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH FIRE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SECRETARY.

ANY OBJECTION THAT RESOLUTION BE BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR? HEARING NONE. WE NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT RESOLUTION.

ANYONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD. MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED.

COUNCIL MEMBER BONANO MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION? BROUGHT FORWARD A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BONANO, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

HEARING NONE SO ORDERED A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 144118, ADOPTED ON APRIL 17TH, 2024, DECLARING A 2008 FORD F250 BEARING VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 1FTNF20518, E, C31144, AND A 2003 FORD EXPLORER XLT BEARING VIN NUMBER 1FTBF2064 BECK 78380.

OWNED BY THE POWERS OF JEFFERSON, NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND DONATING SAID VEHICLES TO THE CITY OF HARAHAN AT NO DIRECT COST TO THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON.

TO CORRECT THE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE 2003 FORD EXPLORER XLT TO ONE FMS U63K13UC15858 AND OBJECTION THAT RESOLUTION BE BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR.

HEARING NONE, WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT RESOLUTION.

ANYONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

MADAM CLERK, NOTE THAT NO ONE APPEARED.

COUNCILMAN BONANO. MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION? BROUGHT FORWARD A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BONANO, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

COUNCILMAN WALKER, I HAVE NONE.

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, I HAVE NONE, AND I'VE COMPLETED THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.

THAT TAKES US TO CONSENT AGENDA ONE AND COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION ON THE IN GLOBO ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 24 THROUGH 45.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

CHAIRMAN AND 43 NEEDS TO BE AMENDED.

RIGHT. I ALMOST LOST THAT NOTE, BUT I FOUND IT.

YOUR MOTION COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN ON THE GLOBAL ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 24 THROUGH 45, -43, WHICH WILL BE AMENDED.

MOVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE GLOBAL ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 24 THROUGH 45 -43, WHICH WILL BE AMENDED ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER. HEARING NONE SO ORDERED.

READ NUMBER 43, PLEASE WITH THE AMENDMENT, A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. TODD MASON, REPLACING MR. THOMAS MCALLISTER TO THE OLD METAIRIE COMMISSION AS A RESIDENT OF THE OLD METAIRIE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 40, ARTICLE TEN, OLD

[CONSENT AGENDA ONE]

[02:45:01]

METAIRIE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND THE AMENDMENT IS IN THE FIRST.

WHEREAS TO CHANGE THE SECTION TO READ SECTION 33-1.25 OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH CODE OF ORDINANCES PROVIDES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF OMM CD RESIDENTS TO THE OMC FOR TERMS THAT SHALL RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE TERM OF THE APPOINTING PARTY.

AND THAT'S ALL THE AMENDMENTS.

I HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENT BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR.

HEARING NONE. COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, YOUR MOTION ON THAT AMENDMENT? MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

AND IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER? HEARING NONE SO ORDERED.

THAT TAKES US, MR. CHAIR. YES, SIR. THAT WAS MY MOTION, I BELIEVE.

I'M SORRY, COUNCILMAN LILJENBERG.

MY BAD.

LET'S GO BACK. COUNCILMAN ROSENBERG, YOUR MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT AMENDMENT? ON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN LILJEBERG, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

YOUR MOTION NOW ON ITEM NUMBER 43, AS AMENDED.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF ITEM 43, AS AMENDED? A MOTION OF COUNCILMAN LILJENBERG, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

AND COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION ON THE GLOBAL ADOPTION OF ITEMS 46 THROUGH 97 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, -67 AND 80, WHICH ARE TO BE AMENDED.

CONSENT AGENDA TWO NOW.

YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD WE ALSO.

70 FOR DISCUSSION.

YES. SO, I'LL SAY AGAIN YOUR MOTION REGARDING THE GLOBAL ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 46 THROUGH 97, -67 AND 80, WHICH ARE TO BE AMENDED.

AND YOU SAID 70 TO DISCUSS.

YES, SIR AND 70 TO DISCUSS.

SO MOVED. ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE GLOBAL ADOPTION OF ITEMS 46 THROUGH 97, -67 AND 80, WHICH WILL BE AMENDED AND 70 TO DISCUSS ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM NUMBER 67, A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH M4 PUBLIC SECTOR INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE AN ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOLUTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS UNDER RFP NUMBER 0457, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $14 MILLION OVER THE FIVE-YEAR INITIAL TERM.

[CONSENT AGENDA TWO]

AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE IN THE PREAMBLE AND IN SECTION ONE TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT TO 14,500,000.

TO CHANGE THE ACCOUNT NUMBER IN SECTION TWO.

TO READ THAT THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CHARGED AS FOLLOWS $14 MILLION TO ACCOUNT NUMBER 459404088733159410021 AND $500,000 TO ACCOUNT NUMBER 1001000617331.

AND TO ATTACH ADDENDUM NUMBER ONE TO THE SERVICE WORK ORDER CONTRACT DOCUMENT.

AND THAT'S ALL THE AMENDMENTS. I HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENTS BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR.

HEARING NONE. COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED? A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

PLEASE READ IT. NUMBER 70, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE POWERS OF JEFFERSON AND THE DREW PET FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED TO ALLOW UNEXPENDED FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,673 TO BE USED TOWARDS SORRY, THE PET FESTIVAL TO BE HELD IN LAFRENIERE PARK IN THE MEADOW ON MAY 4TH, 2024.

COUNCILWOMAN BOHANAN. YEAH, I'M EXCITED ABOUT THIS EVENT.

IN FACT, I SPONSORED THIS EVENT.

I WAS SURPRISED IT WAS ON THE AGENDA.

IT'S HAPPENING IN LAFRENIERE PARK.

IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED BY ME.

WHAT MY QUESTION IS, IS THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THIS? WE'VE ENTERING INTO A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT THAT LUCKILY; I WAS ABLE TO FIND ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA.

IT WAS NOT FORWARDED TO ME BEFORE THAT.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHERE THE WHERE ARE THE FUNDS COMING FROM? THIS THESE FUNDS ARE COMING FROM DIVISION A.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

I'D SAY YOUR MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER SIX.

YOU DON'T WANT THEM. I MEAN, WE CAN USE THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

NO, I JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM.

THEY WERE JUST ON THE AGENDA AND ACTUALLY DONE BY MY PREDECESSOR.

OKAY, WE'RE JUST CONFIRMING THAT BEAUCOUP DE CHIEN IS A GOOD EVENT.

ALL TOGETHER. YOUR MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 70.

THAT'S NOT MY, IT'S ACTUALLY COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN.

I'M SORRY. IT'S CONFUSING. OKAY.

WE CAN MOVE JOINTLY FOR APPROVAL.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. THAT'S FINE.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 70 FOR APPROVAL JOINTLY BY COUNCILWOMAN, VAN VRANCKEN AND BOHANAN.

[02:50:02]

SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER? HEARING NONE SO ORDERED.

LET'S GO UP TO NUMBER 80, PLEASE.

MADAM CLERK WITH AMENDMENTS.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON AND THE JEFFERSON PARISH FINANCE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDING FOR THE NEW ORLEANS EDUCATION LEAGUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

TO IMPLEMENT AND MANAGE A RESIDENTIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE, TRANSFORM AND REVITALIZE THE HOUSING STOCK OF THE TARRYTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WILL IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS LIVING IN JEFFERSON PARISH, AND PROMOTE FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $60,000, AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE TO ADD A NINTH, WHEREAS ON THE RESOLUTION AND THE AGREEMENT THAT READS COUNCIL AT LARGE DIVISION, A COUNCIL AT LARGE DIVISION B AND COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE HAVE EACH BUDGETED AN ADDITIONAL $20,000 FOR THE OPERATION OF THIS PROGRAM, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000.

AND THAT'S ALL THE AMENDMENTS.

I HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO AMENDMENTS BEING BROUGHT FROM THE FLOOR.

HEARING NONE. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, YOUR MOTION MOVED TO APPROVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION, AS AMENDED, A MOTION OF COUNCILMAN EDWARDS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

A RESOLUTION SELECTING A VENDOR TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ACCOUNTING ASSISTANCE AND RELATED GRANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JEFFERSON COMMUNITY ACTIONS PROGRAM.

NUMBER 98, PLEASE.

THE ADDENDUM AGENDA.

NUMBER ONE PLEASE.

JEFF KAPP, HEAD START BIRTH TO FIVE UNDER RFP 0478 COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON.

DELOITTE. ANY OBJECTION TO THE SELECTION OF DELOITTE ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

AND NOW YOUR MOTION ON THE IN GLOBO ADOPTION COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN OF ADDENDUM AGENDA ITEMS TWO THROUGH 17.

SO. MOVED. ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE ADOPTION OF ADDENDUM AGENDA ITEMS? TWO THROUGH 17 A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

[ADDENDUM AGENDA ITEMS]

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION TO MOVE 18 TO SPECIAL DISTRICTS, PLEASE.

AND NOW WE HAVE TO.

SO, MOVED ANY OBJECTION TO THE MOVE OF ITEM NUMBER 18 TO SPECIAL DISTRICTS ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

LET'S GO TO SPECIAL DISTRICTS 18 AND 19.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT TO ADVERTISE FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS AND OR FIRMS INTERESTED IN PROVIDING COURT REPORTING SERVICES ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS FOR THE JEFFERSON PARISH FIRE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.

COUNCILWOMAN BOHANAN? I MOVE TO ADOPT. SAY I'M SORRY.

MOVE TO ADOPT. MOVE TO APPROVE.

HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION? ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN BOHANAN SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF CHARLES M HUDSON AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH FIRE COMPANIES TO THE JEFFERSON PARISH 911 ADVISORY BOARD, REPLACING MR. BRYAN ADAMS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TWO-YEAR TERM.

I AM GOING TO ASK CHARLIE HUDSON TO STAND UP AND LET'S GIVE HIM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE.

I PROUDLY MOVE FOR APPROVAL ON THIS.

CHARLIE HAS BEEN SUCH A JUST A FABULOUS EMPLOYEE OF THE PARISH FOR SO LONG.

I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU ATTAIN THIS POSITION.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THAT RESOLUTION ON MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER? CHARLIE. CHARLIE, JUST REMEMBER, SOMETIMES YOU GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR.

NUMBER 99, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT TO ADVERTISE FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATION FROM FIRMS. INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING AS INVESTMENT MANAGER FOR THE JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, BY ACTIVELY TRADING THE PORTFOLIO MANAGED WITHIN THE DISTRICT'S INVESTMENT POLICY GUIDELINES AND ACCORDING TO STATE LAW.

COUNCILMAN LILJEBERG, YOUR MOTION.

I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF OUR RESOLUTION ON MOTION OF COUNCILMAN ROSENBERG, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

NO NEW BUSINESS, NO STATUS REPORTS.

SO NOW, PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON SPECIAL SUBJECT MATTERS, PLEASE FILL OUT A REQUEST TO SPEAK.

CARD THE BACK OF CHAMBERS.

HAND IT UP TO THE FRONT.

IF THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AL MORELLA, 4260 EAST LOYOLA DRIVE, FIFTH DISTRICT.

[JEFFERSON PARISH SPECIAL DISTRICTS]

KENNER FOURTH DISTRICT, UNINCORPORATED JEFFERSON 52 YEARS.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FROM THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING $135,150.

TOP FIVE BENEFACTORS COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, COUNCILMAN WALKER, COUNCILWOMAN BOHANAN, COUNCILMAN LEE, AND COUNCILMAN LILJEBERG GOVERNOR JEFF

[02:55:02]

LANDRY. WHO IS THAT? COUNCILMAN WHO? LYNCHBURG.

LYNCHBURG. YEAH, I LIKE THAT PRONOUNCE IT TOOK OUR CLERK SO LONG TO GET IT.

NOW YOU'RE GOING TO COME HERE AND DO THAT? WELL, IF YOU'RE NOT WELL, IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT, I'LL JUST CALL YOU HINES.

HOW ABOUT THAT? I'VE BEEN CALLED WORSE.

I JUST CALL YOU HINES. HOW ABOUT THAT?

[PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON SPECIAL SUBJECT MATTERS]

OKAY. LYNCHBURG GOVERNOR JEFF LANDRY AND HEATHER CLOUD.

SENATOR HEATHER CLOUD, I'M THE MAN IN YOUR RESIGNATION, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, OVER THOSE TWO BILLS CONCERNING OUR RECORDS.

502 HOUSE BILL SENATE BILL 502 IS ONE OF THEM, AND THE OTHER ONE IS 482.

AND YOUR ATTEMPT TO INSULT THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA, YOU TWO HAVE EXPOSED YOURSELF OF HAVING VERY LIMITED INTELLIGENCE.

NOW, I WANT TO COMMEND KATE BRUMLEY, OUR EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT, FOR STANDING UP FOR OUR LAWS, AS OPPOSED TO WASHINGTON, DC, TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THEM AS IT RELATES TO THE ALPHABET PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I CALL IT.

THAT'S MY TERM.

WHO LIKES IT, LIKES IT, WHO DON'T? DON'T I CARE LESS? NOW, I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND THE SHERIFF, SHERIFF JOE LOPINTO AND THE JPSO FOR THE HELP THEY PROVIDED TO THE KENNER POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE ISSUE THAT WE HAD BACK THERE THIS PAST SUNDAY.

THAT'S WHAT YOU DO.

THAT'S WHAT YOU DO WITH PSYCHOS.

YOU PUT. OUT OF MY WAY. YOU DON'T DEAL WITH THEM.

YOU PUT THEM AWAY. AND THEY DID EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO.

OKAY, NOW I STILL SEE.

I DON'T SEE ANY LEGISLATION.

STILL TRYING TO REINSTATE THAT FIVE-MINUTE RULE.

SO, YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO DISRESPECT THE PEOPLE WHO TAKE THEIR TIME TO COME HERE AND SPEAK.

AND YOU, YOU CONTINUE THIS, I MEAN, THIS SHAMEFUL.

I CALL IT SHAMEFUL ENGAGING IN THIS THREE-MINUTE RULE.

SO, I'M LOOKING TO SEE THAT CHANGE.

AND UNTIL IT IS, YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR THIS AT EVERY COUNCIL MEETING, I GUARANTEE IT.

NOW, WHY I GOT A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT I WANT TO MAKE.

ALSO AT 30S SECONDS, MR. AL. THAT'S 20. TIME, MAN.

THIS COMING FRIDAY, MAY THE 3RD, WE GOT OUR MUSIC IN THE PARK IN KENNER AND HERITAGE PARK.

IF YOU LIKE OTIS REDDING AND YOU LIKE FATS DOMINO, WE GOT A BAND CALLED RYAN FORAY AND THEY ARE FANTASTIC.

Y'ALL ALL WELCOME TO COME ON OUT.

AND THE WEATHER'S GOING TO BE NICE, AND IT SHOULD BE A NICE EVENT.

NOW ANYBODY GOT ANY COMMENTS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME MR. ALLAH JOHN BEL EDWARDS MAKE IT FOUR MONTHS BEFORE YOU CALLED FOR HIS RESIGNATION.

I'VE BEEN CALLED. I CALLED FOR HIS RESIGNATION HIS LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS IN OFFICE UP UNTIL HIS LAST DAY, I THINK.

I THINK JOHN BELL CAME. I MEAN, YOU'RE CALLING FOR LANDRY A LOT QUICKER THAN JOHN BELL.

WELL, BECAUSE HE'S TRYING TO.

HE'S TRYING TO DENY US WHAT'S RIGHTFULLY OURS.

AND WHEN YOU STEP ON THE PUBLIC'S TOES, YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT.

THAT'S THE ONLY RECOURSE THERE IS.

CALL FOR THE RESIGNATION.

I GOT ONE MORE THING I WANT TO SAY.

CAN I GET A FEW EXTRA SECONDS? NO, MR. AL, CAN'T DO IT.

NOT IN THIS MEETING. OKAY? NOT TODAY. TO BE CONTINUED.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.

BRIAN MILLER, FIRE CHIEF FROM LIVE OAK MOUNTAIN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, IN WAGGAMAN TO PREFACE BEFORE I GET STARTED, THIS IS NOT A DIRECT SHOT AT CHIEF ROBINSON, AS HE HAS DONE EVERYTHING HE CAN TO ASSIST WITH THIS.

I TOOK OVER LIVE OAK WHEN I INTERVIEWED AND HIRED, KNOWING THAT I WOULD RECEIVE SOME BACKLASH, SOME BUMPS IN THE ROAD, SOME ROADBLOCKS, STONEWALLING BECAUSE OF MY ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS PRIOR TO MY HIRING.

AND THAT'S OKAY.

I ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE.

I'M IN THE PROCESS OF TAKING A DEPARTMENT THAT HAS FIVE FIRE TRUCKS THAT ARE DILAPIDATED, OUTDATED FROM 1995.

WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO PURCHASE TWO.

ONE IS A FRONTLINE PUMPER; ONE IS A LIGHT RESCUE.

YES. I CAN STAND HERE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY AND SAY IT'S A LEARNING EXPERIENCE.

AND LIKE MR. AL SAYS ABOUT ALPHABETS, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT H-GAC WAS, BUT IT HAS BEEN USED THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF LOUISIANA CONTACTING THE STATE PROCUREMENT OFFICE.

THEY SAID THE STATE DOESN'T USE H-GAC, BUT THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN LOUISIANA HAVE.

NOW WE WAS INFORMED THAT WE CAN'T USE IT.

HOWEVER, THREE DEPARTMENTS WITHIN JEFFERSON PARISH, ONE BEING A MUNICIPALITY, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN COUNCIL.

WE'LL PUSH THEM TO THE SIDE, BUT TWO OF THEM FROM RIGHT HERE ON THE WEST BANK.

SO, MY QUESTION IS, IF IT'S ILLEGAL FOR WAGGAMAN TO PURCHASE A NEEDED FIRE TRUCK FOR A LOW

[03:00:09]

PRICE, AND I'LL TELL YOU, 575,000 WITHOUT WAITING.

CHIEF HUDSON AND MANY CHIEFS, MR. DENAULT CAN EVEN TELL YOU THAT'S NOT A BAD PRICE FOR A FIRE TRUCK.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT TWO YEARS AND PROBABLY ADD ANOTHER 200,000 FOR THAT.

WELL, THERE'S TWO DEPARTMENTS THAT USED THE VERY ORGANIZATION I'M ASKING, AND WE'RE TOLD WE CAN'T.

SO, MY QUESTION TO YOU AS A COUNCIL, IF I CAN'T, IF WE CAN'T AS A COMMUNITY IN WAGGAMAN USE WHAT WE NEED TO PURCHASE THE TRUCK.

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THOSE THAT DID? IF IT'S ILLEGAL TODAY, IT MUST HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL BACK THEN.

WE NEED.

I'M NOT COMING UP HERE TELLING YOU WE NEED A FIRE TRUCK, AND WE EXPECT IT OUT.

AND WE WANT SHINY LITTLE KNOBS, AND WE WANT CERTAIN TIRES.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A FIRE TRUCK THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE VERY SERVICE THAT THE CONTRACT SAYS WE NEED TO PROVIDE.

AND THE MONEY THAT WOULD BE USED IS VOTED ON BY TAXPAYERS FOR FIRE PROTECTION.

I'M NOT TAKING THAT MONEY AND GOING TO BUY A PICKUP TRUCK THAT I WANT TO DRIVE.

IT'S A FIRE TRUCK TO PROVIDE THE VERY FIRE PROTECTION AND SERVICE WE'RE CONTRACTED TO DO.

THAT'S YOUR TIME, MR. MILLER.

WE CAN IF WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT AND SEE THE LEGALITY OUT OF.

DINO HAS ANY INSIGHT ON THAT AT THIS MOMENT, I DON'T [INAUDIBLE] PARISH ATTORNEY.

DO YOU KNOW IF THAT'S A STATE OR A PARISH PURCHASING LAW? THE ONE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO BUY SOMETHING FROM.

IT'S A FIRE TRUCK OUT OF STATE CONTRACT.

IT'S OKAY. IT'S JUST PUBLIC BID LAW THAT IT MAY BE YOU.

THE RECOURSE WOULD BE TO CHANGE THE LEGISLATION.

WE'RE WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY PUBLIC BID LAW HERE LOCALLY.

IT'S BEEN DONE. THERE'S ACTUALLY A TRUCK BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW BEING USED WITH HVAC.

SO, IF IT'S ILLEGAL FOR WAGMAN, HOW IS IT NOT ILLEGAL FOR THE COMPANY THAT'S DOING IT? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE COMPANY THAT'S DOING IT.

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. DON'T LOOK AT ME.

I DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY EITHER.

NO, NO, NO, I'M WALKING AWAY WITH.

YOU TOLD ME TUESDAY.

I'D LIKE COUNCILMAN BONANO AND COUNCILMAN VAN VRANCKEN AND COUNCILMAN LEE IF HE'S AVAILABLE.

THAT WAY Y'ALL ARE FULLY AWARE OF, I ONLY HAVE THREE OF US.

YOU CAN'T HAVE FOUR. YOU DON'T HAVE THREE.

OKAY. YEP.

COUNCIL. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS.

WHEN I WAS ASKED ABOUT THE FIRE TRUCK, I GOT IT APPROVED THROUGH COUNCILMAN LEE'S OFFICE THAT THE LIVE OAK MANOR FIRE DEPARTMENT NEEDED A FIRE TRUCK.

WHEN HE CAME TO ME AND ASKED ME IN REFERENCE TO USING HGA, I WENT TO THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THEY TOLD US THAT WE COULD NOT USE THAT CONTRACT, SO THAT'S WHY WE HAD ON THAT. I'M ALL ABOUT [INAUDIBLE].

I HAD THE RESPECT FOR HIM.

MY QUESTION AGAIN IS IF I CAN'T, HOW DID THE OTHER TWO DEPARTMENTS DO IT? THERE'S A LADY SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE RIGHT THERE BEHIND YOU.

I BELIEVE SHE SPOKE EARLIER TODAY.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PROVIDE HER WITH THAT INFORMATION.

TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, COUNCILMAN, SHE HAS IT.

THERE WE GO.

WELCOME BACK, MISS CHATELAINE.

STARTING TO FEEL LIKE OTHER PEOPLE.

IF I COULD JUST GET MY ORDINANCE PASSED, YOU'D NEVER SEE ME.

AND SO, IS THAT IN OUR WORLD? BEFORE THE MEETING GETS CLOSED OUT, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S BEEN A VERY BUSY MEETING FOR EVERYBODY.

IS UNDERSTOOD IT. THERE WAS A DEFERMENT OF THE ORDINANCE.

AT ONE POINT, I HEARD WE NEEDED A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

AND THEN IT WILL BE READ INTO SUMMARY.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE HAD OUR VOTES, AND THAT [INAUDIBLE] HAS WHAT SHE NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WILL BE IN A POSTURE TO BE CONSIDERED THE NEXT MEETING. COMING UP, NEXT BROKEN RECORD.

OKAY. WE GOOD COMING UP IMMINENTLY.

OKAY. SONIA LASHLEY, 1705 HAMPTON DRIVE.

SHELL GAME.

WELL, IN MY SITUATION, WE'VE BEEN IN A WEST BANK JEFFERSON PARISH MONOPOLY GAME AND MY FAMILY HOME, FINANCES AND EVERYTHING'S BEEN PIECES TO YOUR GAME.

AT LEAST SHE CAN GET SOMETHING DONE WHEN THEY SAY ABOUT CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS, BECAUSE MY PHONE RECORDS SHOW HOW MANY TIMES, I'VE HAD INSPECTIONS AND NEVER GOT IT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I CALL IT A 2020 COVID EDITION FAILURE OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

DEWAYNE HOLMES DOING JESSE ERIC WILLIAMS, THEN CYNTHIA PRESIDENT LEE SHENG, JAMES THOMPSON, MYRON EVANS, DISTRICT ONE LAWRENCE

[03:05:07]

SEMINOLE. MIKE LOCKWOOD RETIRED, AND BILLY RETIRED THAT OUT, THE REPORT STATES AND TIMES JOHN ALLEN, MIKE THE CAMERAMAN BROOKE BURMEISTER, MR. DIRECTOR OF DRAINAGE.

SONNY, AREN'T YOU EX INVESTIGATOR CRIMINALIZATION.

DID YOU INVESTIGATE YOUR OWN CRIMINALIZATION? DONALD HOGAN WILLIAMS, TAMARA MORRIS MANAGER OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, BOARD OF HEALTH, SLASH, MANAGER OF BOARD OF HEALTH.

AND HER SIDEKICK, DIANE CULLEN.

TRUCK 5478.

DAVID FRAZIER.

THAT CAME TO MY HOUSE WITH NOT EVEN A DICK STICKER, BUT THERE'S 20 CARS WITH A DICK STICKER THAT COULDN'T SEE, HEAR OR SMELL THAT HAD RAT TAIL MAGGOTS.

AND MY NEIGHBORS WAS GAGGING.

THE DAY BEFORE THE TREE WAS PULLED UP BY A LICENSED TREE TRIMMER, TIFFANY DAVIS.

RON AUSTIN, WHO WAS WORKING WITH THE PARISH THAT'S NOW WORKS FOR [INAUDIBLE] IS TOXIC TALKS AND DISCOVERIES.

WELL, WHY AM I DISCOVERY DIDN'T GET FILLED OUT FROM DECEMBER 2022, [INAUDIBLE] EMAIL EXCHANGE THAT I DIDN'T FIND ABOUT IT UNTIL MARCH OF 23, 2023.

WHILE CONVICTED, HUBBARD BILL HERBERT RAMSEY WAS DOING A COVER UP PROJECT OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE ATTORNEY WAS WORKING WITH THE PARISH TO MAKE US LOOK LIKE WE WASN'T COMPLYING.

SO, SINCE THEY TALK ABOUT MISS VAN VRANCKEN ABOUT THE PARISH AND PUBLIC'S TRUST AND ALL OF THIS BECAUSE I DON'T FOLLOW NO LEADER, I LEAD MY OWN PACK. THAT'S WHY I'M 54 AND NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE.

BECAUSE YOU FOLLOW ME, OR YOU CAN STAY BEHIND.

WHEN IS THE PARISH ARE GOING TO BE TRUTHFUL TO THE PUBLIC OF EVERYTHING THAT Y'ALL BEEN MAKING ME LOOK LIKE I'VE BEEN CRAZY ON? BECAUSE THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS LOSE MY $46,000 LOAN I OWED ON MY HOUSE, BUT I JUST GAVE HIS NEPHEW $35,000 IN RENT.

I MEAN, I COULD DO THE MATH.

I COULD BE LIVING FOR $100 A MONTH RIGHT NOW.

SO, I MEAN, COME ON, WE'RE GOING TO BE TRUTHFUL.

LET'S BE TRUTHFUL. YOU KNOW HOW THIS WOULD WORK SO EASY.

AND I'M JUST A DONUT SLINGER THAT CAN'T GO TO WORK ANYMORE BECAUSE I'M SO MAD.

I CAN'T AT YOUR TIME. MA'AM, WHY DON'T Y'ALL WAKE UP WITH YOUR HEART ON YOUR SHOULDER AND THINK ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE BEFORE YOU THINK ABOUT YOURSELF? THANK YOU. WE'RE JUDGING PEOPLE.

HAVE A GREAT DAY.

OUR LAST MEETING, I'M GONNA START MAKING MYSELF.

AWESOME. THANK YOU.

HI. SHE AIN'T EASY TO FOLLOW.

I'M TELLING YOU. I WISH Y'ALL HAD FIGURED THAT OUT.

I WISH SOMEBODY FIGURED IT OUT, LIKE, A LONG TIME AGO.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT MYSELF.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS IN SOME WAY THAT ISN'T JUST REPETITIVE.

DOESN'T MAKE ME FEEL LIKE THE CRAZY BAT.

ANYWAY, SO I GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING.

I'M ALWAYS GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING.

ESTABLISH JUSTICE.

AND IT WAS YOU KNOW; I'M ALWAYS HAVING TO REVISIT THIS ONE BECAUSE THAT THING WAS LOST.

WE DON'T I DON'T THINK ANYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT MEANS.

AND FOR GOOD REASON.

IT'S AN ACCUMULATION OF STATUTES, FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JAMES MADISON, WHETHER IT WAS GOING TO BE EVERY 29 YEARS OR EVERY 70 YEARS, THIS THING WAS SUPPOSED TO GET REWROTE.

THINK ABOUT IT. JEFFERSON FIGURES THIS OUT, AND I DEFER TO HIM BECAUSE HE REALLY DID THE MATH.

I MEAN, THIS GUY WAS REALLY PARTICULAR, AND HE DETERMINED 29 YEARS, SPECIFICALLY 29 MADISON HAVING GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS.

OH, NO, NO, NO, NO, MAKE IT EVERY 70 YEARS.

RIGHT. BECAUSE IT WAS JUST AN ARDUOUS THING TO GET THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH TO AGREE TO UNITE ON ANYTHING.

ESTABLISHING JUSTICE. THE FIRST THING THEY DO IS THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THIS RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO BE AN IMPERFECT UNION BECAUSE WE CAN'T RESOLVE THIS ONE BIG THING THAT NOBODY EVEN WANTS TO TALK ABOUT.

SO, WE RESOLVE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE A PERFECT UNION, BUT WE'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE YOUR CRIMINALITY DETERMINED BY PROXIMITY TO A KING, BY HOW WEALTHY YOU ARE.

ANYBODY THINK THAT THOSE TWO THINGS DOESN'T MATTER NOW? YOU AIN'T GOT JUSTICE.

ESTABLISHED JUSTICE MEANS IT'S SET UP IN A FIRM OR PERMANENT BASIS THAT'S ESTABLISHED.

WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT PROCESS, SO IT'S NOT PERMANENT.

IT'S FIRM JUSTICE.

JUSTICE. THAT'S A MORAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.

AND I CAN ASSURE YOU ONE THING.

IT CAN'T BE MADE BY A MAJORITY.

A MAJORITY DECISION MAKING PROCESS IS A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, NOT A MORAL PROCESS.

THAT'S A WINNER TAKE ALL.

THAT'S. I GOT ONE MORE VOTE THAN YOU.

WE GET TO HAVE IT ANY WAY WE WANT IT.

[03:10:02]

AND THE STATUTES JUST KEEP ON ACCUMULATING.

WE GOT 30,000 PLUS ORDINANCES FOR JEFFERSON PARISH.

ANYBODY KNOW HOW MANY FEDERAL LAWS THERE ARE? YOU ONLY NEED FOUR LAWS.

IF WE REWROTE THIS CONSTITUTION, THERE ARE ONLY FOUR LAWS.

IF WE HAD ANY FAITH IN A JUDICIAL SYSTEM, WE COULD REDUCE IT DOWN TO FOUR AND TRUST THE JUDGES.

MY JUDGES. I COULD TRUST THESE GUYS.

I TRUST BOTH OF THEM.

I GOT MURDER, I GOT ASSAULT, I GOT THEFT, AND I GOT RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT.

NOW, RECKLESS IS ENDANGERING.

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT. THAT'S THE ONE WHERE I GOT TO TRUST YOU.

ALL'S OPINIONS, YOUR JUDGMENT.

BUT IT'S A MORAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY, NOT A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

YOU HAD SIX JUSTICES, ONE CHIEF JUSTICE OVERSEEING FIVE JUSTICES.

THAT WAS SO THAT IF THEY EVER SPLIT THREE TWO, THIS ONE HAD AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF POWER TO EITHER MAKE IT A SPLIT DECISION, SEND IT TO THE LEGISLATURE, OR MAKE IT A SUPERMAJORITY CLASS WILL RESUME AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME, I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? MR. CHAIRMAN, REALLY QUICK JUST A SHOUT OUT.

CONGRATULATIONS TO CHAPPELLE, THE CHAPPELLE HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS' TEAM FOR WINNING THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP FIRST TIME IN THEIR HISTORY.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE RECEIVING THEIR PROCLAMATIONS TONIGHT AT BUTCH DEWEY AT 7:15.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO ATTEND, CONGRATS TO THEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE? ANY PARTING WORDS? WE'VE SAID ENOUGH TODAY.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE READ THE ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION INTO SUMMARY AND WE HAVE TO DO THE FIRST ONE.

DO YOU HAVE A GOOD DAY? IT'S A MOUTHFUL.

RIGHT. OKAY.

THE FIRST ONE I'M GOING TO READ IS, IS GOING TO REQUIRE UNANIMOUS VOTES.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER TWO OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE ARTICLE FIVE RELATIVE TO AMENDING SECTION 2155.10 REGARDING QUALIFICATION, TERM LIMITS AND INVESTIGATIVE POWERS OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT COMING FROM THE FLOOR OR THAT ORDINANCE COMING FROM THE FLOOR? HEARING NONE.

COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN YOUR MOTION ON THAT ORDINANCE.

SO MOVED. ANY OBJECTION TO ADOPTION OF THAT ORDINANCE? RIGHT INTO SUMMARY. A MOTION OF COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.

HEARING NONE. OKAY.

[ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION AND PUBLICATION IN SUMMARY]

RESUB APPROVING.

SORRY. APPROVING OF RESUB OF LOTS ONE AND THREE B SQUARE 13 BEVERLY HILLS SUBDIVISION.

AMENDING LOT ONE SQUARE 32 PONTCHARTRAIN GARDENS SUBDIVISION.

MORE PARTICULARLY AMENDING FROM BC-2 TO C2.

AMENDING 0W1 OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT M-1, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT M-2 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT M-3 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND M-4 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT MORE PARTICULARLY AMENDING 0W1 OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT M-1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT M-2 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT M-3 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT M-4 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

AMEND CHAPTER 13, CHAPTER 16, CHAPTER 39 AND CHAPTER 40 TO CREATE A SET OF NEW MODERN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO ADD AND DEFINE NEW USES AND ASSIGN THESE USES TO EXISTING AND NEWLY ESTABLISHED DISTRICTS OF THE AME AVONDALE INDUSTRIAL MARINE DISTRICT AND THE U1R1 RURAL DISTRICT.

AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 14796 TO CREATE A NEW CLASSIFICATION OF COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER, AMENDING CHAPTER TWO, ARTICLE FIVE, DIVISION 24, SECTION 2456 AND 2458 OF THE CODE TO REMOVE CERTAIN SAFETY RELATED DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER.

AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 14796 TO REVISE THE PAY GRADE ASSIGNMENT FOR THE CLASS OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNICIAN.

TWO TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 14796 TO REVISE THE PAY GRADE ASSIGNMENT FOR THE CLASS OF EARLY HEAD START TEACHER.

TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 14796 TO REVISE CLASS TITLES UTILIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JPAS TO AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER 14796 TO REVISE FOOTNOTE NUMBER EIGHT AND FOOTNOTE NUMBER 11, AMENDING CHAPTER TWO, ARTICLE FIVE, DIVISION 34, SECTION 5-515.14 SHOULD BE SECTION 2515.14 AMENDING SECTION TWO, FIVE ONE, 5.15 AND 2515.16 OF THE CODE AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 13709, THE EXECUTIVE PAY PLAN AMENDING CHAPTER TWO, ARTICLE THREE, DIVISION ONE, SECTION 293.2 OF THE CODE TO MODIFY CERTAIN SAFETY RELATED DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF RISK MANAGEMENT.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2024 OPERATING BUDGET.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2024 CAPITAL BUDGET.

AND THAT'S ALL THE SUMMARIES I HAVE TO READ.

THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.

[03:15:02]

ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE? AS READ INTO SUMMARY, A MOTION FOR COUNCILWOMAN VAN VRANCKEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WALKER.