[00:00:01]
[I. Call Commission meeting to order]
I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER, YOU KNOW, WILL YOU PLEASE DO ROLL CALL.[III. Review and approval of Minutes from the July 17, 2024 meeting.]
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM OUR JULY 17TH MEETING.CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I MOVE TO APPROVE A SECOND.
[IV. Public Comment (Each speaker will be allowed a total time limit of two [2] minutes)]
GINA, ARE THERE ANY, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE ARE AWARE OF? OKAY.JI SPEAK ON THE, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT.
CAN YOU MOVE YOUR MIC A LITTLE CLOSER PLEASE? I WANT SPEAK ON THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT AND, UH, MY CLIENT, UH, THE BOARD MEMBER, THE JFI, ALL PROMINENT BUSINESS PEOPLE PARISH.
I'M DAVE COVE AND I'M AN ATTORNEY AT REPRESENT JEFFERS FACILITY INC.
WHICH IS A, UM, CORPORATION THAT'S INVOLVED IN THE, UH, BUILDING OF THE, UM, GARAGE AND THE PORT OF ORLEANS.
MY BOARD MEMBERS ARE ALL PROMINENT BUSINESS PEOPLE IN THE PARISH, AND THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'VE BEEN SLANDERED BY THIS REPORT THAT THEY HAD NO CHANCE TO RESPOND TO.
IG HAD A YEAR, SHE SAID SHE'D BEEN WORKING ON THAT.
SHE DIDN'T TALK TO ME, SHE DIDN'T TALK TO MY BOARD MEMBERS, SHE DIDN'T TALK TO THE ATTORNEY FOR JR I, WHICH IS, UH, OR THEIR BOARD MEMBERS.
UH, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A LOT OF AUDITS.
NORMALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU, SOMEBODY PUT OUT AN AUDIT SAYING, GOT THESE ISSUES AND THESE QUESTIONS, HOW DO YOU RESPOND? THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.
AND I THINK THAT, UH, A FAILING ON THE PATH OF THE IG.
UM, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE MUCH ELSE TO SAY, BUT, UH, I WANTED TO REPORT MY BOARD'S CONCERNS.
I REPRESENT DISTRICT 85 IN THE, UH, STATE LEGISLATURE.
UH, I WENT TO THE JEFFERSON PARISH COUNCIL MEETING THIS MORNING AS WELL.
MY ONLY PLANS WERE IT WAS GONNA BE MY FIRST TIME TO BE ABLE TO VISIT THE COUNCIL SINCE THE SESSION ENDED.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS, MY PREDECESSOR, WHO WAS HERE AS WELL, AND I WORKED ON REAL HARD, WAS TO GET CAPITAL OUTLAY FUNDS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
UH, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IT SINCE INAUGURATION, JANUARY 7TH.
UH, REPRESENTATIVE JOE MARINO, WHO HAD THE SEAT BEFORE ME, EXCUSE ME.
AND, UH, ALL I KNOW ABOUT THIS PROJECT IS THERE ARE VERY, VERY MANY PEOPLE WORKING VERY HARD TO GET FUNDS.
AND REPRESENTATIVE MARINO'S, SEVEN YEARS PRECEDING ME, HE GOT ALMOST SEVEN, $7 MILLION THROUGH CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR THIS PROJECT.
AND, UH, THROUGH MY EFFORTS WORKING WITH THE WAYS AND MEAN COMMITTEE, I WAS ABLE TO GET ANOTHER TWO POINT, ALMOST 3 MILLION, $2,982,000, I THINK.
UM, NOTHING HAS EVER SEEMED TO BE BELOW BOARD ON THIS PROJECT.
NOBODY'S EVER, YOU KNOW, MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS THIS WAY.
THE STATE KNEW THAT THIS WAS GONNA BE A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, AND THE PITCHES I HAD TO MAKE AND, AND REPRESENTATIVE MARINO HAD TO MAKE BEFORE THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE TO, TO GET THESE FUNDS.
AND I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE TOTAL OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT WOULD BE, BUT IF WE ARE SUCCESSFUL STATE FUNDS ARE GONNA PAY FOR ALMOST TWO THIRDS OF THIS PROJECT.
AND, UH, MY CONCERN IS, IS, IS THAT THE WAY THIS WAS HANDLED IS GONNA MAKE MY JOB HARDER IN BATON ROUGE BECAUSE THESE QUESTIONS WILL COME UP.
YOU KNOW, WHAT ABOUT THE, THAT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? AND THE MOST I GOT OUTTA THE REPORT THAT IT WAS MORE OF A POLITICAL OPINION.
YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO, NOTHING ILLEGAL FOUND, NOTHING BELOW BOARD FOUND.
IT WAS JUST THAT MAYBE THIS MONEY COULD BE SPENT BETTER SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
AND, AND DON'T GET ME WRONG, IF, IF THE IG FOUND WRONGDOING, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WASN'T ABOVE BOARD, SURE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.
[00:05:01]
ALMOST YEAR IN THE LEGISLATURE, THE ONLY THING I KNOW ABOUT THE WAY JEFFERSON PARISH HANDLED THIS WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARD TO GET.THIS IS PARKING FACILITIES GONNA FACILITATE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THAT PART OF THE GOVERNMENTAL COMPLEX AS FAR AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
REPRESENTATIVE MARINO SOLD IT BEFORE ME TO THE STATE AS AN ECONOMIC DRIVER FOR THE CITY OF GRETNA AND JEFFERSON PARISH.
THIS IS A JEFFERSON PARISH PROJECT IN THE CITY OF RUTTON.
BUT IT'S JUST, IT, IT JUST ASTOUNDED ME.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WAS GONNA HAPPEN AT THE MEETING TODAY.
BUT THAT THIS THING WENT ON FOR A YEAR WITHOUT ASKING ONE PERSON INVOLVED, ONE SINGLE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, I'LL HAVE TO GO TO BATON ROUGE TOMORROW REGARDING FINANCES.
I DUNNO WHAT THE NEWS CYCLE IS ON THIS THING, BUT I MAY HAVE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANSWERS TO GIVE, BECAUSE ALL I KNOW IS THAT ON OCTOBER 3RD, 23RD LAST YEAR, SOMEBODY DELIVERED SOME BOXES TO THE IGS OFFICE.
BUT NO COUNCIL MEMBER, NO MEMBERS OF ADMINISTRATION, NO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL OF STAFF ARE ASKED A SINGLE QUESTION OVER A YEAR.
HEY, WHAT ABOUT THIS? AND MY CONCERN IS, IS THE INSURED'S OF PARISH PROJECTS, THERE'S A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, BUT THE STATE IS ACTUALLY FUNDING ALMOST TWO THIRDS OF THE BILL FOR THIS.
THERE WAS A CONSENSUS THAT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS IN GRETNA, THE ELECTED OFFICIALS IN JEFFERSON PARISH, AND THIS COULD BE A GREAT ECONOMIC DRIVER FOR THE, UH, FOR PARISH.
I JUST WISH THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DROPPED AS A BOMBSHELL LIKE THIS.
AND IT, IT JUST SORT OF FLABBERGASTED ME BECAUSE I WENT THERE TODAY JUST TO SAY HELLO.
AND IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND I'M HERE TONIGHT.
BUT I'M, I'M CONCERNED THAT IT MAY HINDER MY ABILITY TO GET MORE, UH, I THINK THERE'S $7 MILLION MORE OUT THERE IN PRIORITY FIVE FUNDING AND CAPITAL OUTLAY.
AND MY GOAL WAS TO SECURE THAT OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO OVER THE YEAR I'VE BEEN WORKING, AND THIS, THIS INVESTIGATION WAS GOING ON FOR SAY, THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE YEAR I'VE BEEN HELPING AID GET THIS PROJECT FUNDED.
IT'S, IT'S BEEN ALL HARD WORK AND PEOPLE HOLDING HANDS AND TRYING TO GET SOMETHING GOOD DONE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE PRESS GRABBED A HOLD OF IT.
SHE DIDN'T PUT ANYTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED IN HER REPORT, BUT THE PRESS USED THE WORD ILLEGAL.
YOU KNOW, IF I GO TO BATON ROUGE AND TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE, THOSE QUESTIONS ARE GONNA BE ASKED OF ME NOW.
YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS ROLL DOWNHILL.
AND WE JUST, THE SURPRISE THAT NOBODY KNEW AND IN A REPORT THAT WAS MORE, SEEMED TO ME THAT IT WAS PERSONAL OPINION THAN MORE INVESTIGATED.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S BASICALLY ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
UH, THIS COULD MAKE MY JOB HARDER IN BATON ROUGE.
THERE'S STILL $7 MILLION OUT THERE THAT THE STATE HAS ALLOCATED.
BUT IT'S MY JOB TO MOVE THAT ALLOCATION FROM PRIORITY FIVE TO PRIORITY ONE.
AND, UH, THIS INVESTIGATION, IF THAT'S WHAT IT, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, BUT THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING FOUND EXCEPT OPINIONS OF MAYBE THE, SOMETHING DIFFERENT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
THANK YOU, MR. AND, AND THAT'S THE JOB OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS DECIDE WHAT GETS DONE.
I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA TRY TO, UH, MY NAME'S JOE MARINO.
I WAS, UH, FORMERLY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE INVOLVED IN A PROJECT THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WROTE A 35 PAGE LETTER ABOUT.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE HEARING TODAY IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL, BUT WE RECEIVED THIS LETTER.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS, WE FOUND OUT TODAY DURING THE MEETING AT THIS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, IS THAT THIS 35 PAGE LETTER WAS SENT TO THE COUNCIL.
AND THEY WERE ASKED NOT TO DISSEMINATE IT UNTIL THURSDAY AT NOON.
IT WAS NOT TO BE MADE PUBLIC UNTIL THURSDAY AT NOON.
[00:10:01]
ON FOX EIGHT, THEY AIRED A INTERVIEW WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND THEY WAS SHOWING THE GRAPHICS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT THAT SHE OBVIOUSLY HAD MET WITH THEM THE DAY BEFORE AND PROVIDED IT TO THE PRESS.SO THE PROJECT, WHICH IS IN, IN, IN THE LETTER, IS IN, IS VERY INFLAMMATORY AS, AS IT'S MAKING ACCUSATIONS.
IT'S ENTITLED PUBLIC LETTER TO PARISH COUNCIL DONATING PUBLIC FUNDS AND PROPERTY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDS AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY.
SO THE WHY I CAME TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TODAY TO TELL THEM THAT I TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT BECAUSE THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY BEEN TRANSPARENT.
THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY BEEN FOLLOWING ALL STATE LAW, ALL PARISH LAW.
WE'VE HAD IT REVIEWED EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WITH THE OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATION IN BATON ROUGE.
WE'VE HAD THE, UH, FACILITIES AND PLANNING CONDITIONS, AND WE'VE HAD THE PARISH ATTORNEY, WE'VE HAD ALL THE CONTRACTS, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND WITH THE RULES.
AND TO SUGGEST THIS AND, AND THEN, WHICH REALLY WOULD, THE PART THAT AGGRAVATED ME THE MOST ACTUALLY, IS THAT WHEN THEY WERE GOING ONE BY ONE AND SAYING, WERE YOU CONTACTED, I WORKED ON THIS PROJECT FOR THREE YEARS.
I AM THE ONE THAT STARTED THE FUNDING.
I KNOW ABOUT HOW IT'S EVOLVED.
I KNOW ALL THE, A LOT OF DETAILS ABOUT THIS, THESE SPECULATION THAT SHE'S INCLUDED.
BUT SHE ADMITTED IN THE MEETING THAT SHE HAD NOT SPOKE TO ONE SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT BEFORE SHE DRAFTED SOMETHING TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH LOOKS LIKE A FINAL REPORT.
THIS LOOKS LIKE THIS HAS BEEN RESEARCHED, THIS LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN VETTED, AND IT IS NOT.
AND SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE HADN'T SPOKEN TO ANYONE.
SO THERE ARE THINGS IN HERE WHICH ARE MISLEADING.
THERE ARE THINGS, THERE ARE THINGS IN HERE THAT ARE BORDERLINE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE USING PUBLIC FUNDS.
AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THIS TYPE OF LETTER THAT IS NOT AN OPINION.
AND, AND, AND, AND IT'S RECKLESS.
AND, AND, AND THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY, YOU POTENTIALLY, YOU'RE GONNA RUN AWAY A BUSINESS THAT'S BEEN WORKING WITH US FOR YEARS.
AND WHEN YOU MAKE ACCUSATIONS LIKE THIS THAT ARE NOT BASED UPON AN INVESTIGATION, THE OTHER THING WHICH I DIDN'T CARE FOR TODAY IS THAT WHEN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS ASKED, WHEN DID YOU START INVESTIGATING THIS? OR WHEN DID YOU START LOOKING INTO THIS? SHE SAID, OCTOBER, WHICH IS 11 MONTHS AGO.
SO 11 MONTHS AGO, YOU STARTED LOOKING INTO SOMETHING THAT YOU THOUGHT MIGHT NOT BE RIGHT.
AND THEN THIS WEEK YOU DROP A 35 PAGE OPINION, UH, UH, A LETTER.
AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO A SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT FROM THE STATE, PARISH, CITY JFI, NONE.
SO IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT WASTE, WELL WASTE IS WHATEVER IT WAS INVOLVED IN CREATING THIS DOCUMENT AND, AND RELEASING IT TO THE PUBLIC IN A RECKLESS MANNER.
AND, AND, AND YOU CAN TELL THAT I HAVE A, A STRONG OBJECTION TO THE MISLEADING INFORMATION IN HERE.
I'M ACTUALLY HERE TO SPEAK ON THE SAME TOPIC.
UH, I DON'T WANT TO REGURGITATE EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE HAS SAID.
I JUST WALKED IN AND, UH, I HAVE, I HAD THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR JOE MARINO, REPRESENTATIVE MARINO, THAT THAT ACTUALLY WAS THERE FOR EVERY STEP OF WHAT YOU TALK.
HE JUST TALKED ABOUT, UM, MY OFFENSE AND MY COMPLAINT TODAY IS MORE ON THE LINE, JUST LIKE WHAT HE STATED.
UH, MY NAME IS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER OR REPORT.
'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IT IS NOW, BECAUSE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING TODAY, IT WAS STATED, WELL, IT'S A LETTER, AND THEN, THEN IT WAS COMING.
YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE MINUTES THAT IT, THAT IT WAS A REPORT.
AND AT ANY POINT, I WAS NEVER CONTACTED TO GET MY OPINION OR WHERE I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING OR HOW IT WAS GOING, IF IT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, LEGAL, ILLEGAL.
UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN PART OF A LOT OF SMALL INVESTIGATIONS OVER THE YEARS, UH, IN, I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE PUT OUT A LETTER BEFORE THEY INVESTIGATE SOMETHING FOR WRONGDOING, BECAUSE I, YOU SHOW ME ONE LAW AGENCY THAT GOES OUT THERE AND TELLS THE CRIMINAL, I'M GETTING READY TO INVESTIGATE YOU.
UH, IF THERE'S SURELY SOMETHING WRONG HERE, WE'RE GONNA INVESTIGATE IT.
WE DON'T SEND A LETTER TO THE PRESS AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE GETTING READY TO TAKE PLACE TO ADDRESS A PROBLEM, I THINK IS HAPPENING.
YOU INVESTIGATE IT AND LET THE INDIVIDUALS KNOW AFTER IF THEY WANT A REBUTTAL BEFORE YOU SEND OUT A REPORT.
[00:15:01]
HAPPEN WITH THIS.MY NAME POPS UP IN AN ARTICLE.
UH, TODAY IN THE COUNCIL MEETING, UH, YOU'VE HEARD ALREADY WHERE ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ASKED, I GOT THIS NOTICE I COULDN'T RELEASE TILL NOON TILL TOMORROW.
BUT IT SHOWS UP ON THE NEWS WITH A, A PRERECORDED INTERVIEW.
THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS.
OR THE KOSHER WAY TO DO IT, TO HAVE RESPECT OF PEOPLE TO TRUST AN ORGANIZATION OR SOMEONE THAT'S GONNA COME TO YOU AND SAY, WHAT'S WRONG AND WHAT'S RIGHT.
UH, SO LOOK, I STAND HERE TODAY JUST SAYING IT FRUSTRATES ME BECAUSE I WORKED VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE THIS PARISH MOVED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
UH, THIS PROJECT FROM DAY ONE, HAS ALWAYS BEEN VETTED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE RIGHT PROCESS THAT WAS OUT THERE BY LAW.
UH, IF THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE CORRECT A MISTAKE.
UH, I, I, I'VE SPOKEN TO THE PARISH ATTORNEY AND JUST LIKE TODAY STATED IN THE MEETING, NOTHING WAS ILLEGALLY DONE.
NOTHING WAS NOT DONE THE RIGHT WAY, AND IT WAS TRANSPARENT.
UH, YOU KNOW, AS WELL AS I DO, THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST YOU'VE HAD AT ONE OF YOUR MEETINGS IN YEARS.
WE HAVE A LOT OF MEETINGS THAT ARE TRANSPARENT AND PEOPLE DON'T TAKE NOTICE OF THEM AND COME UNTIL THERE'S A PROBLEM.
WELL, WHEN YOU RUN TO THE MEDIA AND SAY, OH, HERE, HERE'S WHAT I GOT WITHOUT VETTING IT PROPERLY IN MY MIND, YOU GET ATTENTION.
IF THAT'S THIS, WE NEED TO GET THE IG SHOULDN'T HAVE ATTENTION.
IT SHOULD BE BEHIND THE SCENES QUIETLY FINDING OUT CORRUPTION, WASTE AND FRAUD, QUIETLY NOT TRYING TO BE THE FRONT PAGE NEWS, UH, AND MAKING, AND HONESTLY MAKING JEFFERSON PARISH LOOK LIKE OUR NEIGHBORING PARISH.
THAT, THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE IN TROUBLE.
AND I CAN'T, IF YOU CAN PROVE TO ME SOMETHING WAS DONE WRONG, I'D LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
AND I'LL BE STANDING RIGHT HERE WITH YOU'ALL, OKAY? AND IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER YOU.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? HEARING NONE.
LET'S MOVE TO THE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
[V. Presentation and discussion of Inspector General Report, to include public discussion of any recently published reports, open letters, data, and statistics by the Office of Inspector General]
OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT.UM, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, GIVEN THAT WE DO HAVE, UM, INTERESTED PERSONS IN THE AUDIENCE, I WAS PREPARED TO GO THROUGH MY INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT IN ORDER, UM, BUT IN DEFERENCE TO THEM, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO REORDER MY REPORT AND TO SKIP STRAIGHT TO MY PRESENTATION ON THE PUBLIC REPORT, UM, THAT THEY'RE SPEAKING ABOUT.
IF THAT, WOULD, THAT WOULD PLEASE THE COMMISSION MAKE A MOTION TO REORDER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT.
SO NOT PART OF MY PUBLIC PRESENTATION, BUT I WILL GO AHEAD, UM, AND MAKE MENTION OF IT.
UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING OR THE MISINFORMATION, UM, THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE MEMBERS THAT WERE HERE.
UM, THE, THE REPORT WENT PUBLIC AT MIDNIGHT, AT MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY.
SO THIS CONCEPT THAT THEY WERE PROVIDED THE REPORT, AND THEY WERE ASKED NOT TO RELEASE IT UNTIL NOON TIME THE NEXT DAY.
UM, I'M SURE IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT ON THEIR PART, UH, THAT IT WAS 12:00 AM AND NOT 12:00 PM.
UM, AND AS THE MEMBERS ARE AWARE, UM, A COPY OF THIS REPORT WAS LIKEWISE PROVIDED TO YOU AT THE SAME TIME, UNDER THE SAME EMAIL HEADING.
SO, UM, WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND BEGIN MY PRESENTATION ON THE REPORT AT ANY TIME.
PLEASE STOP ME WITH QUESTIONS.
UM, I RECEIVED, UH, THE SAME NOTIFICATION I GOT THIS EMAIL, I WAS TOLD IT WAS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT TO DISCUSS IT, AND WOKE UP AND SAW YOU ON THE NEWS.
SO, UH, WHY DID WE ISSUE THIS LETTER? UM, THE MANDATE OF THE OFFICE IS TO PREVENT AND TO DETECT, UM, DETECTION'S PRETTY EASY.
YOU KNOW, WE PERFORM AUDITS NECESSARILY.
THAT'S AN AUTOPSY INVESTIGATIONS.
LIKEWISE, YOU'RE GOING OUT THERE AND YOU'RE DISCOVERING SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, AND USUALLY YOU'RE LOOKING FOR WHY IT HAPPENED.
AND LOOKING FOR A ROOT CAUSE, THE
[00:20:01]
MISSION OF THE OFFICE TO BE PREVENTATIVE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHEN DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO, TO, TO STEP FORWARD.BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU STEP FORWARD IN ENOUGH TIME THAT SOMEBODY CAN TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S A BALANCING.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR LETTER WAS ISSUED, UM, THE, THE TRANSACTION INVOLVES A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION AND AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAT WERE FORMED IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS.
WHILE WE COULD SEE SOME OF THIS TRANSACTION COMING TO FRUITION IN 2023, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN 2023 IF YOU DIDN'T STOP AND TAKE A MOMENT TO UNDERSTAND THE ENTITIES AND THE ENTITIES HISTORY WITH THE PARISH, UM, AS TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND HOW IT IS INFORMING THE FUTURE.
SO THIS UNDERTAKING WAS NOT JUST ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS GOING ON, IT WAS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE ENTITIES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION.
UM, WHEN WE HAD ADEQUATE INFORMATION, WHICH REQUIRED A LOT OF AUTOPSY BY THE DEPUTY OVER AUDIT, ERICA SMITH LITERALLY WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE PUBLISHED AUDITED FINANCES FOR BOTH OF THESE ENTITIES FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS TO UNRAVEL WHERE WE WERE.
SO THIS LETTER WAS ISSUED, UH, LAST WEEK.
UM, IT IS THE FOUNDATION FOR WHAT WILL BE FUTURE WORK, UM, BUT IT WAS A PUBLIC LETTER INTENDED TO BE PREVENTATIVE, AND THAT IS TO DELIVER CRITICAL INFORMATION TO THE DECISION MAKERS THAT THEY CAN RECONSIDER THE DIRECTION THAT THEY'RE TAKING FOR THESE REASONS.
SO WHY ARE WE CONCERNED? UM, WE ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE THE PARISH IS POISED TO EXTEND 26.5 MILLION ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS WITHOUT FOLLOWING PUBLIC BID LAW, WHICH I WILL DISCUSS, AND POSSIBLY A NUMBER 12 MILLION.
UM, THE BUILDINGS WILL BE BUILT BY A NONPROFIT WITH NO PROVEN ABILITY TO MEET FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, A MAJOR CONCERN, AND THAT THE PARISH IS INCURRING EXPENSES AND WILL INCUR MORE EXPENSES TO MAINTAIN THESE BUILDINGS.
AND THAT, NOTABLY, THE PARISH COUNCIL SHOWS TO INCREMENTALLY PASS LEGISLATION TO FACILITATE THIS, WE HAVE JUST HEARD A SERIES OF REPRESENTATIVES COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ABOUT HOW THIS DEAL AND THIS TRANSACTION WAS THE WORK OF MULTIPLE PEOPLE FOR YEARS, WHICH, IF IT WAS THE WORK OF MULTIPLE PEOPLE FOR YEARS, INCLUDING GETTING STATE FUNDING, THEN THAT WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE IN MAY, 2023, THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO, WHICH IS IN MAY, 2023 WHEN THEY PASSED THEIR FIRST RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PARKING LOT.
THEY LIKELY KNEW NEW WE'RE GOING TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO LEASE IT OUT TO A GROUP HUB, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET PARISH FUNDING TO DO IT.
BECAUSE IN MAY, 2023, THEY PASSED A SINGLE RESOLUTION FOR $32,000 AND SAID, THIS IS THE MONEY WE'RE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS PROJECT.
AND THEN A FEW MONTHS LATER, THEY PASSED A DIFFERENT RESOLUTION, AND A FEW MONTHS LATER, THEY PASSED A RESOLUTION FOR OVER $400,000.
AND THEN A FEW MONTHS LATER, THEY ESSENTIALLY BROKE APART ONE TRANSACTION ACROSS MULTIPLE MEETINGS IN ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS FOR A PROJECT THAT PEOPLE ARE NOW COMING FORWARD AND SAYING THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR YEARS.
SO THE RELEVANT LAWS THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN THIS PUBLIC LETTER WAS LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE SEVEN, SECTION 14, A PUBLIC BID LAWS, PUBLIC LEASE LAWS, AND THE OPEN MEETINGS LAWS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER.
BUT BEFORE I GET INTO THE FACTS, I THOUGHT IT MORE HELPFUL TO YOU TO SORT OF LIKE, DISCUSS THESE LAWS UPFRONT.
SO THE CONSTITUTION HAS A BASIC PRINCIPLE.
THIS ESSENTIALLY GUIDES ALL EXPENDITURES BY GOVERNMENT.
AND THAT IS, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LOAN OR DONATE PUBLIC ASSETS AND PUBLIC MONEY WITH NO RETURN.
I MEAN, THAT'S, IT'S CALLED GRATUITOUS ALIENATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND PUBLIC PROPERTY THAT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
WE ALSO HAVE PUBLIC BID LAWS IN ITS SIMPLEST FORM, PUBLIC BID LAWS SAY THAT IF WE'RE CONSTRUCTING, REPAIRING, OR REFURBISHING A BUILDING THAT A COST OF OVER $250,000,
[00:25:01]
THAT THIS WORK MUST BE COMPETITIVELY BID.SO WHEN THE PARISH GOES AND BUILDS BUILDINGS, WHICH IT DOES ON THE REGULAR, OUR MAJOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, THOSE PROJECTS ARE BID OUT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LAW IS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR PUBLIC DOLLARS ARE PROTECTED, THAT WE ARE GETTING OUR BEST PRICE, THAT WE ARE NOT GIVING CONTRACTS DUE TO FAVORITISM, AND THAT WE ARE GETTING THE BEST DEAL.
PUBLIC LEASE LAWS ARE A LITTLE BIT SIMILAR, BUT DIFFERENT IN SO FAR AS WE AS GOVERNMENT CAN LEASE OUT OUR PROPERTY.
AND THEN IN THOSE SITUATIONS, THE GOAL OF THE EXERCISE IS FOR US TO GET THE MAXIMUM RETURN ON OUR REVENUE.
SO KIND OF LIKE PUBLIC BID, UM, WE ARE TO PUT OUT OUR PROPERTIES AND ACCEPT COMPETITIVE OFFERS TO LEASE OUR PROPERTIES, AND THEN CHOOSE THE BEST OFFER FOR US BASED UPON THE BUSINESS'S FINANCIAL STABILITY, BASED UPON THE BUSINESS'S WILLINGNESS TO CONSTRUCT BASED UPON THE BUSINESS'S WILLING TO RETURN REVENUE TO GOVERNMENT THAT'S PUBLICLY LOST.
LAWS OPEN, MEANING LAWS TELL US THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO WATCH GOVERNMENT DELIBERATE.
WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE HOW THEY MAKE THE DECISIONS, AND SPECIFICALLY IF GOVERNMENT IS MAKING DECISIONS BEHIND THE SCENES.
AND AS THE PUBLIC, WE ARE ONLY SEEING THE END RESULT IN NOT THE DELIBERATIONS, THEN WE ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH OPEN MEETINGS LAWS.
SO THIS GIVES YOU SORT OF THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE LAWS THAT WERE IN THE PUBLIC LETTER AND THE CONCERNS WHICH WE ARE RAISING.
JEFFERSON REDEVELOPMENT IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION.
THIS WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE PARISH COUNCIL IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS.
AND PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS EXIST THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
IT'S A VERY VIABLE, LEGITIMATE ENTITY, UM, FOR GOVERNMENT TO FIND A WAY TO BE NIMBLE AND FLEXIBLE, ALMOST LIKE PRIVATE BUSINESS IN THAT RESPECT.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS ARE INTENDED TO DELIVER A BENEFIT BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT, NOT SIMPLY BE A PASS THROUGH FOR GOVERNMENT MONEY TO LEAVE.
IS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAT WAS FORMED AT OR ABOUT THAT SAME TIME.
CAN YOU, WOULD, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO TYPES OF, OF ORGANIZATIONS? BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT IN DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT OBJECTIVE.
UM, MOST NOTABLY, THE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION IS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE PUBLIC LEASE LAW AS AN EXCEPTION.
SO, WHEREAS GOVERNMENT HAS TO PUT OUT THEIR LEASES COMPETITIVELY, PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION DOES NOT HAVE TO LEASE COMPETITIVELY LIKE GOVERNMENT THAT EVEN THE NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT THEY WOULD LOOK AT TO DETERMINE IF THAT'S TO THE BENEFIT THE PUBLIC.
IT'S NOT JUST BASED ON AN ECONOMIC VALUE RETURN.
AND IN THE REPORT WE GAVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF LIKE SITUATIONS WHERE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS, UM, DO BRING IN MONEY OR GOVERNMENT NOT JUST RECEIVE MONEY.
SO THESE TWO ENTITIES WERE FORMED IN THE TWO THOUSANDS.
UM, IT'S, IT'S A LONG TIME AGO AND RUN RESPECT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO GO BACK THERE BECAUSE IT WAS AT THAT MOMENT THAT THE PARISH ENTERED INTO A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT.
AGAIN, COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENTS ARE VERY COMMON IN GOVERNMENT.
UM, WE CAN ENGAGE IN COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENTS, UM, PROVIDE FUNDING FOR EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, ET CETERA, BUT THEY SERVE ALSO A VERY SPECIFIC FUNCTION.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE ENTERED INTO A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WITH THESE TWO ENTITIES SUCH THAT THE PARISH AGREED TO TAKE FOUR SURFACE PARKING LOTS, UM, AROUND THE GOVERNMENT COMPLEX IN GRETNA AND LEASE THEM TO JRI, THE REDEVELOPMENT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION FROM JRI.
WE AGREED THAT JRI WOULD THEN SUBLEASE THESE SAME LOTS TO JFI.
THEN WE AGREED THAT JFI WOULD GO GET FINANCING FOR A GARAGE THROUGH A BOND ISSUANCE.
NOW, WHEN THE BONDS WENT OUT, ESSENTIALLY THE PARISH WAS THE GUARANTOR
[00:30:01]
ON THE BONDS AND OUR PROPERTIES WERE MORTGAGED TO SECURE THOSE BONDS.JFI WAS TO BUILD THE GARAGE AND THE REVENUE FROM THE GARAGE WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY THE DEBT.
NOW I CAN TELL YOU THIS, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE NEEDED FOR JFI TO BUILD US A GARAGE.
I, IT WAS BACK IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS.
DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE DECIDED THAT JFI WAS GONNA BUILD A GARAGE BY TAKING OUT A DEBT AND HOPEFULLY THE REVENUE FROM THE GARAGE WAS GOING TO PAY THE DEBT.
UM, THE GARAGE WAS BUILT IN 2007.
THE PARISH WENT BACK TO JFI AND DECIDED THAT THE GARAGE NEEDED TO BE EXPANDED AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO BUILD AN EOC BUILDING EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER.
SO FIVE YEARS AFTER WE LEASED ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES TO THESE TWO ENTITIES, WE TURNED AROUND AND HAD TO GO BACK TO THE ENTITIES TO DO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A GARAGE.
SO WE TOOK THE GARAGE THAT THEY BUILT AND WE ADDED ON SPACES TOO.
ALONG THE WAY WE END UP BY PAYING THE DEBT FOR JFI.
SO THIS IS A CHART THAT IS IN THE PUBLIC LETTER AND THAT IS, SO WE AGREE WE'RE GONNA LEASE THE PROPERTY TO JRI AND HE DID JRI LEASES IT TO JFI, WHICH IT DID JFI DID IN FACT SECURE FINANCING.
JFI WAS SUPPOSED TO BUILD A PARKING GARAGE OF 700 SPACES.
JFI ACTUALLY BUILT A GARAGE OF 666 SPACES.
JFI WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY THE DEBT FROM THE GARAGE REVENUE AND THE PARISH TO PAY A SHORTFALL UP TO 400,000.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IS THAT THE PARISH PAID J I'S DEBT.
LET, LET, LET ME ASK HIM, IN, IN YOUR REVIEW OF, OF THESE NUMBERS WERE, AND AT THE TIME THE BONDS WERE TAKEN OUT, I ASSUME THAT WHEN A BOND ISSUE IS, IS UNDERTAKEN, YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE SOME PRO FORMA FINANCIALS.
WERE THERE ANY PRO FORMA FINANCIALS GIVEN THAT WOULD SAY, THIS IS THE ANTICIPATED REVENUE THAT WE WILL GET.
WE KNOW WE ARE GONNA BE A SHORT CALL OF X DOLLARS.
UH, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW, HOW WE GOT TO, WE'RE GONNA PAY UP TO 400,000 AND HOW YOU NOW SAY THE PARISH HAS PAID FOR THE DEBT.
I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY PROOF OR FINANCIALS.
I DO KNOW THAT THE PARISH WAS GUARANTEED, SO THE PARISH PASSED A RESOLUTION SAYING THAT THEY WOULD PAY UP TO 400,000.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PARISH HAS EVER PAID AS LITTLE AS 400,000.
WELL, ARE THERE IN, IN YOUR ANALYSIS, BECAUSE IF THE PARISH AGREED TO PAY UP TO 400, WERE THERE ANY CHANGES? DO YOU NOTED IN THE BUDGET THAT THE PARISH IS PAYING X DOLLARS MORE? IS THAT PART OF THE, THE ANNUAL BUDGET? HOW IS THAT CALCULATED THAT WE KNOW IT'S MORE THAN 400,000 A YEAR.
SO THAT WAS PART OF THE WORK THAT WE DID.
SO IN ADDITION TO GOING THROUGH J'S AUDITED FINANCIALS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, BECAUSE THEY'RE THERE, WE ALSO WENT THROUGH THE PARISH'S BUDGET BOOKS AND IT IS A BUDGETED ITEM THAT THE PARISH IS PAYING J'S DEBT FROM OUR GENERAL FUNDS IS JFI CHARGE A PAYMENT WHEN YOU ENTER THE GARAGE, I, I KNOW THE PARISH WAS PAYING FOR 200 SPACES THAT WAS AGREED WHEN THE, THE 2007 EXPANSION WAS DONE.
BUT DOES JFI CHARGE OCCUPANTS WHO ARE GOING TO OCCUPY A SPACE IN THE GARAGE? A DAILY RATE? AN HOURLY RATE? TWO THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, THE SCOPE OF THIS LETTER WAS VERY LIMITED.
BUT NUMBER TWO, YES, WE KNOW THAT REVENUE IS GENERATED BECAUSE WE CAN SEE IT IN THEIR FINANCIALS.
SO YES, REVENUE IS GENERATED OUT OF THE GARAGE.
THAT WAS REALLY, WE ARE NOT THERE YET IN OUR WORK.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IF ANY OF THEIR FINANCES WENT TO PAY ANY DEBT SERVICE ON THE BONDS.
IS THAT CORRECT? WE KNOW THAT THEIR FINANCES DID NOT PAY, THE DEBT SERVICE DID NOT PAY ANY.
WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT THE PARISH PAID 97% FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS AND A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR THE NEXT 18 YEARS.
[00:35:01]
WHICH BRINGS US TO THIS PLACE OF NUMBER ONE.UNDER THE LEASE TERMS, WE WERE PAYING THIS, UM, BOND DEBT AND OR LEASE PAYMENTS UNDER THE AUSPICES THAT WE WERE GONNA LEASE 200 SPACES.
BUT FIVE YEARS LATER WE ADDED, WELL MORE THAN 200 SPACES TO THIS GARAGE AT OUR OWN EXPENSE.
THE PARISH, WE ADDED ONTO THE GARAGE MORE THAN 200 SPACES, BUT WE CONTINUED TO PAY A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE DEBT OF THE ENTITY WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO COLLECT THE REVENUE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY THE DEBT.
AND THIS IS WHERE WE ARE FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.
SO NEXT WHAT HAPPENS IS ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE THE PARISH PAYING OFF THE DEBT FOR J-F-I-J-F, I GOT THE $9 MILLION.
IN ADDITION TO THE $9 MILLION THE PARISH PAID TO EXPAND THE GARAGE AS WELL.
THE PARISH BUILT AN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER ON ONE OF THESE PARKING LOTS.
AND ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS, NOT SURPRISINGLY, HAVE BEEN PLEDGED TO GUARANTEE THE DEBT OF JFI.
JIM, LET ME STOP YOU A MINUTE.
UH, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE UH, EOCA MINUTE IF, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY 'CAUSE I'M IN THE GLASS BUSINESS.
EOC WAS A PUBLICLY BID BUILDING, WAS IT NOT? THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER AS WELL AS THE EXPANSION ON THE GARAGE WAS PUBLICLY BID OUT AND BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC BID LAW.
OKAY, SO THAT'S REALLY SEPARATE FROM THE JRI AND JFO.
THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE EOC AND SHOULD, THERE SHOULD BE NO INCOME STREAM IN EITHER DIRECTION INVOLVING THE EOC.
IT WOULDN'T BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO INTEREST BECAUSE NUMBER ONE, WE DO NOT OWN THAT GARAGE.
THE GARAGE THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR.
I'M TALKING ABOUT EOC NOW, JUST THE EOC 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF THE GARAGE.
EC SEPARATE C IS AN IMPROVEMENT ON OUR PARKING LOT.
AND EVERY IMPROVEMENT ON THESE PROPERTIES IS PLEDGED TO GUARANTEE THE DEBT OF JFI ON THE ORIGINAL GARAGE.
THE ORIGINAL GARAGE THAT THEY BUILT AND THE ORIGINAL GARAGE THAT WE EXPANDED AT OUR OWN EXPENSE IS NOT OWNED BY US.
WE DO NOT OWN IT AT THE END OF THE TERM OF DEBT.
WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY AFTER THE BONDS ARE PAID IN FULL UNDER THE ORIGINAL, ORIGINAL CEA.
AFTER THE BONDS ARE PAID IN FULL, THEN THE GARAGE BECOMES OUR PROPERTY, THE PARISH'S PROPERTY OR 2031 OR 21.
SO UNDER THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT, LET'S SAY THIS JEFF, JFI TOOK OUT SOME BONDS AND BUILT A GARAGE.
WE COULD HAVE BUILT THE GARAGE OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE BUILT AN EOC AND WE EXPANDED THE GARAGE.
WE BYPASSED PUBLIC BID LAWS TO GET IT DONE.
WE HAVE PAID OFF THESE BONDS OKAYED BONDS.
AT THE END OF THE DAY WE HAVE A GARAGE AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES USE THE GARAGE.
SO COULD BE BETTER, COULD BE WORSE, BUT HERE WE ARE.
BUT IMPORTANTLY WHEN THE BONDS WERE PAID OFF IN 2031, THEN SORT OF THIS STRUCTURE WOULD NO LONGER BE NEEDED AND WE WOULD OWN THE GARAGE.
AND WHO MAINTAINS THE GARAGES CURRENTLY? 'CAUSE AS I APPRECIATE THE LEASE, JFI IS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAINTAINING THE STRUCTURE.
DO WE KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE OR IS THAT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE, THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS LETTER AND CERTAINLY ON OUR MINDS TO LOOK INTO.
SO 2023 COMES ALONG, WE'VE BEEN PAYING THE DEBT FOR THESE 20 YEARS.
WE'RE NOT SEEING ANY PART OF THE REVENUE FROM JFI AND BEGINNING IN MAY OF 2023, WE HAVE THIS
[00:40:01]
NEW CEA WITH JFI FOR $32,000.UM, ALL OF THE LANGUAGE ACROSS THESE AMENDMENTS READ VERY SIMILAR AND IT'S SOMETHING LIKE DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND DEVELOP, DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND DEVELOP.
SO WE HAVE OUR FIRST ONE, I APOLOGIZE.
IT'S, IT'S AUGUST, 2022 FOR $32,000.
ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE PASSED ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA AS CONSENT ITEMS. SO IT'S JUST, IT'S, THERE'S NO DISCUSSION.
IT'S JUST PAST AND GLOBO AMONGST A BUNCH OF OTHER ITEMS. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MONEY HAPPENING ACROSS MULTIPLE ITEMS, RIGHT? SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR, WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON EACH MEETING ACROSS A SPAN OF TIME BEFORE YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT ACTUALLY IS HAPPENING.
BUT IT BEGINS WITH A $32,000 CEA WITH JFI.
AND LEMME STOP YOU FOR ONE SECOND.
I I, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THOUGHT THE ORIGINAL COOPERATIVE DE INCLUDED JRI DID.
UH, THE DEVELOPMENT IS STILL INVOLVED WITH JRI AND JI, CORRECT? CORRECT.
AND AS WE INDICATED IN OUR LETTER, WE COULD FIND NO TRUE FUNCTION OF JRI, MEANING WE CANNOT IDENTIFY ANYTHING IT HAS DONE OTHER THAN OPERATE AS A PASS THROUGH ENTITY.
ALRIGHT, BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS PAGE, KIM, IF YOU LOOK IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE EIGHT OF YOUR LETTER, IT SAYS THIS EIGHT 18 AMOUNT WAS 34,000 BUCKS, BUT YOUR SLIDE SAYS IT'S 32,000.
UM, IN MAY OF, UM, OF 2003, WE HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO OUR ORIGINAL CEA.
THIS AMENDMENT HAS NO DOLLAR VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
SO THIS AMENDMENT IS PASSED THAT SIMPLY SAYS, CAN WE DEVELOP THIS ONE PARKING LOT WITH A MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT? SO AT THAT TIME, IN MAY, IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE AGENDA, YOU WOULD HAVE NO IDEA THAT PUBLIC FUNDS ARE COMING FROM ANYWHERE ON THIS.
IT'S JUST SAYING WE CAN DEVELOP IT AS A MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT.
THEN LATER ON WE HAVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT.
THREE MONTHS LATER, WE'RE NOW GIVING $425,000 TO JFI TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND DEVELOP, WHICH $400,000 IS REAL MONEY.
BUT AGAIN, YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING OR THE TRUE CONCEPT OR THE TRUE COST.
AND SO AGAIN, YOU'D HAVE TO KNOW TO BE ABLE TO PICK IT OUT.
THEN I'M GOING TO GET TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS THE INTERVENING EVENT.
BUT IN DECEMBER, AFTER WE'VE ALREADY SAID PORT IS GONNA HAVE THIS PROPERTY IN DECEMBER IS WHEN IT CRYSTALLIZES BECAUSE IN DECEMBER THE COUNCIL PASSES $8.6 MILLION TO DEVELOP A BUILDING THAT'S GONNA BE OCCUPIED BY A BREWERY AND A TACO RESTAURANT.
NOW EACH TIME THESE ITEMS COME UP, IF YOU READ THE RESOLUTION, IT WOULD LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE IN TERMS OF MONEY, WHETHER IT'S THE 32 TO 4 65 OR THE $8.6 MILLION.
BUT IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR, THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, YOU KNOW, UH OH, WE NEED ANOTHER 1.2.
WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR OR MAY OF NEXT YEAR, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANOTHER RESOLUTION FOR SOME OTHER OTHER AMOUNT BECAUSE AT THIS TIME WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO COST BECAUSE COST PROPOSALS WERE NOT PART OF ANY PUBLIC RECORD.
SO IN BETWEEN THE 4 65 AND THE 8.6 MILLION, THERE WAS A SPECIAL MEETING IN OCTOBER OF 2023.
AND AT THAT SPECIAL MEETING, THERE WERE NUMEROUS PRESENTATIONS, UM,
[00:45:01]
INCLUDING PRESENTATIONS BY QUARTERLY.AND AT THAT POINT WE LEARNED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT BUILDING THAT'S BUILT WITH PARISH FUNDS ON PARISH LAND WITH A NONPROFIT FOR A BREWERY.
AND THAT WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND OUR LEASE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR OCCUPANCY FOR 10 YEARS WITH OPTIONS TO RENEW.
AND THEY WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY ANY BASE RENT.
WHAT WAS, WERE THERE ANY REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS? WE DO NOT KNOW.
SO I CAN TELL YOU IN THE THEN HOW DO, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THEY, OKAY, SO I CAN TELL YOU THEN WAS IT ADVERTISED YOU DO NOT KNOW.
SO IN THE RESOLUTION THAT AUTHORIZED QUARTER LIENS, THE RESOLUTION MADE REPRESENTATIONS THAT THERE WAS AN RFP IN JUNE.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE RFP CERTAINLY ON OUR LIST OF THINGS TO LOOK FOR.
HOWEVER, WHEN QUARTER ADDRESSED, THE COUNCIL QUARTER EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAD BEEN IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH JFI AS EARLY AS 2021.
SO THE BUSINESS WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ONLY BUSINESS TO RESPOND TO THE RFP, WE HAVE NOT SEEN STATED IN A PUBLIC MEETING.
THEY WERE IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR THIS DEAL.
WELL BEFORE IT MIGHT EVER HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED.
DID DID YOU GET A COPY OF THE RFP? NO SIR.
AGAIN, DID YOU SUBPOENA? NOT YET.
THIS LETTER WAS FOCUSED SOLELY ON WHAT WAS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, LIKE THIS PUBLIC LETTER FOCUSED ON IF I AM WAS IT PUBLISHED? YES.
IF I AM OR WAS, WAS RFP PUBLISHED? AGAIN, NOT THAT THESE ARE QUESTIONS WE WILL ASK AND DOCUMENTS THAT WE WILL REQUEST THAT WOULD BE PUBLIC.
WOULD YOU REQUEST THEM FROM WE WILL REQUEST IT FROM JFI.
ALRIGHT, KIM, IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR SLIDE HERE, THIS HAS A 10 YEAR TERM WITH 15 TERMS, 15 YEARS BEYOND THAT.
BUT THE PARISH IS GONNA OWN THE BUILDING IN 20 31, 7 YEARS.
SO HOW IN THE WORLD CAN A LEASE DIFFERENT PROPERTY? AS I APPRECIATE YOU ASK A QUESTION, BUT THE, THE GARAGE IS ON A DIFFERENT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAN THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THERE WERE, THERE WERE TWO PARKING LOTS.
THERE'S MANY PARKING LOTS IN, IN RETNA, BUT THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE PARKING LOTS.
AND KIM, I I CHRIS ASKED A GOOD QUESTION.
WHEN, WHEN DOES THE PARISH GET CONTROLLER POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY? SO ALL OF THE LOTS ARE COVERED UNDER THE SAME LEASE, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WOULD BE PORT ORLANDO.
SO IS CHRIS RIGHT, THAT IT ENDS IN 2031, THEN THIS LEASE IS VOID.
I MEAN THEY CAN'T, THEY CAN'T LEASE SOMETHING THEY DON'T CONTROL.
THE PARISH IS GONNA BUILD THIS BREWERY.
WE'RE GONNA OWN IT AND WE HAVE ALREADY LEASED IT ON A TO BE BUILT BUILDING FOR 10.
BUT WHO LEASED IT? JFI IS LEASING IT.
THAT IS GONNA HAVE A 10 YEAR TERM WITH THREE FIVE YEAR RENEWALS.
THE GARAGE, WHICH WE WILL FINISH PAYING FOR IN 2031 ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 2031.
WE WILL THEN STILL BE LEASING THE GARAGE THAT WE JUST PAID FOR BECAUSE THEY EXTENDED THE LEASE ON ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES UNTIL WHEN, UNTIL 10 YEARS PLUS THREE FIVE YEAR RENEWALS.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THE LEASE EVEN ON THE GARAGE EXTENDS BEYOND 2031 NOW? YES.
SO, OKAY, SO THE, I I'M FOLLOWING WHAT CHRIS WAS SAYING.
THE IMPRESSION IS THE LEASE ENDS OR THE, THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARISH AND JRI, WHICH SUBLEASES TO JFI ENDS IN 2031 WHEN THE BOND WOULD BE SATISFIED OR BE, OR WHEN THE BOND'S SATISFIED OR 2031 UNDER THE TERM OF DEBT.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING ALL OF THE LEASES OR ALL OF THE LOTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO LEASE HAVE NOW BEEN EXTENDED? CORRECT? ARE THEY EXTENDED BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SEVEN YEARS LEFT TO 2031.
SO THAT WOULD BE 18 YEARS LEFT BEYOND THAT.
SO THEY, ARE THEY EXTENDED 18 YEARS BEYOND 2031, WHICH WOULD BE 2049? OR ARE THEY
[00:50:01]
EXTENDED TO THE, TO THE, TO THE THREE YEARS PAST THAT WITH AN OPTION? DOES JFI HAVE AN OPTION? I I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THEY'RE EXTENDED, HOW DO, HOW ARE THEY EXTENDED? IT'S 10 YEARS WITH A THREE, FIVE YEAR OPTION.NOW HOW THOSE OPTIONS ARE GOING TO LOOK IN THE FUTURE, I CANNOT TELL YOU.
BUT, BUT THE, THE LEASE AS I APPRECIATE THE LEASE AND I'M, I AM AN ATTORNEY, SO I AM HYPER-TECHNICAL.
SOMETIMES I'M NOT MEANING TO BE, BUT THE LEASE AS I APPRECIATE IT, IS BETWEEN JFI AND PORT ORLEANS.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE, THE MEXICAN RESTAURANT IS GONNA HAVE A SEPARATE LEASE, BUT LET'S ASSUME IT'S PORT ORLEANS FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, IS THE PARISH GOING TO SIGN OFF AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AS WELL IN THE EVENT THAT THIS, THIS LEASE BETWEEN J-F-I-J-R-I AND THE PARISH ENDS EARLY OR HOW IS THAT GONNA WORK? OR IS THE PARISH ENTERING INTO THE LEASE WITH PORT ORLEANS? BECAUSE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW THE LEASE TRACKS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THE PARISH PULLING UP THE 2001 CEA AND THE ORIGINAL GROUND LEASES OVER THE COURSE OF THESE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS EXTENDED THEIR LEASE WITH JRI AND APPROVED THE EXTENSION OF THE SUBLEASE TO JFI OUT TO THE YEAR 2046, I BELIEVE.
I LET, LET ME GO TO THE, THE PARISH IS NOT LEASING WITH PORTER LIENS.
THAT THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTAND.
SO THERE IS NO AMONG LAWYERS, THERE IS NO PARITY BETWEEN PORT ORLEANS AND THE PARISH.
IT IS STRICTLY BETWEEN PORT AND JFI.
SO THE, THE RENT THAT PORT ORLEANS IS PAYING, BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING 3% GROSS FOR FIRST 30 MONTHS AND 6% GROSS THEREAFTER, AT LEAST THE FIRST 10 YEARS.
I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF THERE, IF THERE'S AN INCREASE BEYOND THE 10 YEAR PERIOD IF THE OPTIONS ARE EXERCISED.
BUT LET'S ASSUME JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, WE GO 10 YEARS PLUS A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH FOR BREWERY EQUIPMENT.
IS IS BREWERY EQUIPMENT, IS IT MULTIPLE PIECES OF BREWERY EQUIPMENT TIMES A THOUSAND? OR IS IT ONE $1,000 PAYMENT? OR DO YOU KNOW THE LEASE READS THAT THE PARISH IS GIVING MONEY TO JFI TO NOT ONLY BUILD THE MONTHLY MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE ARE ALSO PURCHASING A BARREL SYSTEM.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE BUYING THE EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO OPERATE A BREW PUB.
ALL OF THIS MONEY IS BEING GIVEN TO J-F-I-J-F-I WILL TAKE THE MONEY, BUILD THE BUILDING BY THE BREW PUB EQUIPMENT AND THEN PORTAL LIENS IS GOING TO COME IN.
BASICALLY ALL PORTAL LIENS HAS TO DO IS SHOW UP, PUT SOME TABLES, PUT SOME PEOPLE AND START USING OUR BUILDING AND OUR EQUIPMENT.
BUT NOW WHO GETS, THERE'S A RENTAL FEE THAT'S COMING IN, WHETHER, WHETHER IT'S FAIR MARKET VALUE OR NOT, OF 3% OF GROSS THAN 6%.
UH, AND AS I APPRECIATED IN THE LEASE, WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO MORTGAGE THAT EQUIPMENT AND MORTGAGE? BASICALLY THE BREWING COMPANY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE PORTER LIENS CAN GO TAKE A MORTGAGE OUT ON THEIR LEASEHOLD INTEREST ON OUR PARISH PROPERTY.
BUT ALL RIGHT, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT LEASEHOLD INTEREST IS.
AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LEASE, BUT LEASEHOLD INTEREST CAN BE MULTIPLE THINGS.
IS IT, IS IT JUST THEIR BUILD OUT WHICH ISN'T GONNA BE MUCH TA UH,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING A LOT OF HYPOTHETICALLY, RIGHT? THIS LEASE MUST EXIST, I'M ASSUMING.
I MEAN IF THE PARISH COUNCIL APPROVED THE LEASE, THE LEASE MUST EXIST.
DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THE LIST? THE PARISH COUNCIL NUMBER ONE APPROVED THE LEASE AT A PARISH COUNCIL MEETING IN OCTOBER 23.
IT'S ABOUT 78 PAGES WORTH OF INFORMATION THAT ACCORDING TO STATEMENTS MADE AT THE MEETING, THEY RECEIVED AN HOUR AND A HALF BEFORE THEY WERE ASKED TO VOTE ON IT AND THEY STILL APPROVED IT
BUT WHY CAN'T WE GET A COPY OF THE LEASE? YOU CAN HAVE A COPY OF THE LEASE.
I DO NOT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LEASE.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, SO WHAT IS PLANNED, UM, WE GIVE $34,000.
AT THIS POINT, WE REALLY DO NOT KNOW HOW THE $34,000 WAS EXPENDED.
WE DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT MONEY WAS EXPENDED.
[00:55:01]
8.6 MILLION FOR TWO LEASEABLE REAL RETAIL SPACES.I CAN TELL YOU THAT ACROSS, LOOKING AT THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS, THE NARRATIVE STARTED OUT WITH, WE ARE DEVELOPING A MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT.
AS OF OCTOBER, 2023 WHEN THE COUNCIL MET THE MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT TURNED INTO A BREWERY, A TACO RESTAURANT, A BARBERSHOP, AND A COFFEE SHOP, SOMETIME AFTER THAT POINT, OR ON TOP OF THAT POINT WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT TWO RETAIL SPACES.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE TWO RETAIL SPACES INCLUDES THE BARBERSHOP, THE COFFEE SHOP, THE EVENT SPACE, THE BREWERY, LIKE I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT'S BEING BUILT.
ALL I KNOW IS WE WENT FROM CALLING IT A MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT TO CALLING IT TWO LEASEABLE SPACES.
SO IT COULD BE THAT EVEN THOUGH WE DISCUSSED ALL THESE OTHER SPACES THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'RE ONLY GONNA GET A BREWERY IN A TACO RESTAURANT FOR 8.6 OR $10.3 MILLION, THAT REMAINS UNKNOWN AND UNCLEAR.
AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT, YOU MEAN THAT IT'S NOT PART OF PUBLIC RECORD? CORRECT.
SO WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS WE HAVE THE PARISH GIVING 10.3 MILLION TO J-F-I-J-F-I IS GOING TO BUILD THE BREWERY.
THE BREWERY IS GOING TO BE OCCUPIED BY POB AND POB IS GONNA PAY MONEY BACK TO JFI.
WHAT YOU DON'T SEE IS THERE IS NO ARROWS DIRECTING MONEY BACK TO THE PARISH.
THERE IS NO FLOW OF REVENUE RETURNING TO THE PARISH FOR ITS 10.3 MILLION OR ITS GARAGE THAT IT'S BEEN PAYING FOR.
SO WAIT, LET ME, LET ME ALSO STOP YOU THERE 'CAUSE I, I'M READING YOUR FOOTNOTE 44, UM, IN SEC ON PAGE 13, THAT THE LEASE SPECIFICALLY CAUSED, AND THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROVISION IN A COMMERCIAL LEASE THAT THE LEASE CAUSED FOR THE LANDLORD, WHICH I ASSUME WOULD BE JFI TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY INCLUDING THE HVAC TERMITE CONTROL, ALL MAINTENANCE.
SO THIS ISN'T WHAT WOULD WE WOULD CONSIDER IN AN INDUSTRY AS A TRIPLE NET LEASE? OKAY, I'M NOT GONNA PRETEND TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT LEASES, BUT I CAN TELL TELL YOU THAT OKAY, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT GONNA PAY COMMONARY COST OR YOU'RE NOT GONNA PAY COST FOR MAINTENANCE.
THAT'S, THAT'S IN THIS INSTANCE THE LESSOR'S RESPONSIBILITY.
WHAT I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE IS THAT WE DO NOT KNOW, BUT WE WILL LOOK, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT JFI WAS TO PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE GARAGE, BUT I BELIEVE THE PARISH HAS ABSORBED THE COST OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE GARAGE.
WE ARE NOW SAYING THAT JFI IS GOING TO MAINTAIN THIS NEW BUILDING, BUT JFI HAS NO HISTORY OF BEING ABLE TO GENERATE REVENUE TO MAINTAIN ANYTHING.
IF ANYTHING FALLS SHORT, IT'S A PARISH BUILDING ON PARISH LAND AND WE WILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT.
SO AMONG THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN THE PUBLIC LETTER, AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE PUBLIC LETTER WAS BUILT ON PUBLIC INFORMATION AND CONSIDERING THAT THESE IS THE CRITERIA AND THE PARAMETERS WHICH GOVERNMENT OPERATES IE PUBLIC BID LAWS, PUBLIC LEASE LAWS, TRANSPARENCY.
SO WE NOTED THAT IN 2001, WE LEASED FOUR TRACKS OF LAND TO JFI AND JFI HAS BASICALLY CONTROLLED OUR PROPERTY FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS, BUT JFI HAS REALLY ONLY IMPROVED ONE TRACK OF LAND AND THAT IS THE GARAGE.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE OTHER THREE TRACKS HAVE BEEN DONATED TO THEM.
UM, WE EXPANDED THE GARAGE WITH MORE THAN 200 SPACES IN 2007.
ANY REVENUE GENERATED FROM THE ADDITIONAL SPACES HAS IN ORDER TO THE BENEFIT OF JFI.
AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY CORRELATING BENEFIT TO THE PARISH.
UM, AND NOW WE ARE IN 2023 AND WE ARE LITERALLY GIVING $10.3 MILLION TO THIS NONPROFIT TO BUILD A PUBLIC BUILDING.
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS WE CANNOT DONATE LOAN OR PLEDGE PUBLIC MONEY AND PUBLIC PROPERTY.
[01:00:01]
PLEDGED AND DONATED PUBLIC MONEY AND PUBLIC PROPERTY TO THIS NONPROFIT FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS WITH NO EQUIVALENT RETURN.AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO BUILD A NEW BUILDING FOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE THAT WE'RE STILL NOT GONNA SEE A RETURN ON.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO TWO, THREE SLIDES WITH THE THREE SLIDES? THAT ONE WITH NO ARROWS COMING BACK TO THE PARISH.
IF THIS IS TRULY IN THE NAME OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, HOW DO YOU MEASURE THAT? LIKE SO NO, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO GREEN ARROW COMING BACK.
BUT IF IT'S, IF, IF THEY'RE GENUINE IN THEIR EFFORTS TO DEVELOP A THRIVING ECONOMY IN GRETNA, IN DOWNTOWN GRETNA, HOW DO WE AND, AND IF THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE NONPROFIT, HOW DO WE MEASURE THAT? YOU CAN MEASURE IT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS DEPENDING UPON THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE LOCATION AND SAY THE CHALLENGES THAT ANY GOVERNMENT IS FACING.
SO, UM, A CASE THAT WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH IS THE CABELA CASE, WHICH IS LITERALLY CABELA'S IN GONZALEZ.
AND, AND THAT CASE RAN THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM, UM, AND DELIVERED US SOME CRITERIA THAT WE USED TO JUDGE THESE SITUATIONS.
UM, GONZALES MADE CONCESSIONS IN ORDER TO GET CABELA'S THERE.
NOW CABELA'S WAS GOING TO BUILD, BUT GONZALES MADE CONCESSIONS, BUT THE CONCESSIONS THEY WERE MAKING IS THIS WAS PROPERTY OFF THE INTERSTATE THAT WAS GENERATING ABSOLUTELY NO REVENUE WHATSOEVER.
SO WHEN THEY MADE THOSE CONCESSIONS, THEY KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A BUSINESS THERE THAT WAS GOING TO GENERATE SALES TAX REVENUE.
SO YOU MIGHT LOSE A LITTLE ON THE FRONT END, BUT ON THE LONG SIDE YOU'RE GONNA MAKE MONEY.
AND THE TEST USUALLY COMES DOWN TO IS THE GOVERNMENT GETTING AN EQUIVALENT VALUE.
SO IN TERMS OF JEFFERSON PARISH, GRETNA IS A CITY WITHIN JEFFERSON PARISH AND CERTAINLY PART OF THE PARISH EXCEPT THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE SITUATIONS UNDER THE LAW THAT GRETNA IS ACTUALLY A SEPARATE POLITICAL SUBDIVISION.
IT'S A MUNICIPALITY, IT'S INCORPORATED, IT'S SITUATED IN JEFFERSON, BUT IT'S ITS OWN ENTITY.
SO WE HAVE AREA IN JEFFERSON PARISH THAT IS UNINCORPORATED.
IF YOU ARE BUYING SOMETHING IN UNINCORPORATED JEFFERSON PARISH, THEN JEFFERSON PARISH IS GETTING THE SALES TAX REVENUE.
AND THAT'S GOOD FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
JEFFERSON PARISH ISN'T ACTUALLY GETTING ANYTHING.
SO ALL OF THE SALES TAX REVENUE THAT IS COMING FROM THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO THE CITY OF GRETNA.
SO WE ARE BASICALLY PAYING FOR THIS BUILDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO OWN AND TAKE CARE OF.
AND THERE THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT RETURN TO JEFFERSON PARISH, BUT THAT WAS APPROVED BY ALL OF THE JEFFERSON PARISH COUNCIL.
CORRECT? NOW, NOW KIM, YOU YOU MADE A STATEMENT.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
IF ANY SALES TAX IS, ANY SALES ARE GENERATED THAT, THAT ULTIMATELY LEAD TO SALES TAX.
JEFFERSON RECEIVES $0 IN SALES TAX GENERATED GRETNA AND THE STATE GETS EVERYTHING CORRECT.
SO PUBLIC BID LAWS, PUBLIC BID LAWS, AND AND I I SAID THIS TO SOMEBODY AFTER THE COUNCIL MEETING, THERE'S, AND I DON'T THINK I'M OVERSTATING IT, THERE'S VERY FEW THINGS THAT ARE FAIRLY BLACK AND WHITE IN THE LAW IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT, OKAY? EVEN IN TERMS OF LIKE THE CONSTITUTION, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CEAS AND WE CAN GET SQUISHY ABOUT, WELL, WE'RE GIVING THIS MONEY, WE THINK WE'RE GIVING AN EQUIVALENT RETURN.
IT'S FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE KIDS.
IT'S AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM, IT'S A SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAM.
PUBLIC BID LAW IS A BRIGHT LINE.
UM, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT WHEN GOVERNMENT BILLS SUBSTANTIAL PROJECTS, YOU HAVE TO BID IT OUT COMPETITIVELY.
AND THAT IS TO PROTECT ALL OF THE TAXPAYERS AND THE PUBLIC FUNDS THAT GO INTO THESE BUILDINGS.
SO BY BYPASSING THE PUBLIC BID LAWS,
[01:05:01]
THE PUBLIC HAS ABSOLUTELY NO ASSURANCE WHATSOEVER THAT PROJECTS ARE NOT PUT OUT TO CONTRACTORS BASED ON FAVORITISM, BASED UPON IT CHANGES BASED UPON EXCESSIVE COSTS.LIKE WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO CONTROL IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT BID OUT.
SO IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC LAND, OUR PARKING LOT, AND OUR PUBLIC DOLLARS, PUBLIC LAND, PUBLIC DOLLARS.
AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC BUILDING BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO OWN IT.
SO WHY WOULD WE TAKE OUR PUBLIC DOLLARS, GIVE IT TO A NONPROFIT TO GO BUILD OUR PUBLIC BUILDING? WE BUILD PUBLIC BUILDINGS ALL THE TIME.
WE KNOW WE CAN BUILD THEM BECAUSE WE BUILT THE EOC ON ON ANOTHER PARKING LOT IN THE SAME AREA.
WELL, KIM, UH, THERE'S ANOTHER THING YOU DIDN'T MENTION ABOUT PUBLIC BID.
THERE, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BID ON, UH, JEFFERSON PARISH PROJECTS.
THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED 'CAUSE 'CAUSE EITHER THERE'S A BAD TRACK RECORD, WHATEVER, ONCE THE PARISH HAS NO CONTROL OVER THAT, YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHETHER THE BIDDERS ARE QUALIFIED OR NOT.
BUT WE HAVE THE RISK BECAUSE WE OWN IT.
WE HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE RISK, A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE RISK.
SO THEN FINALLY, PUBLIC LEASE LAWS.
SO WE KNOW THAT WE GAVE THESE PROPERTIES TO JRI TO LEASE OUT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION.
THAT'S A COMPLETELY VALID DECISION BY GOVERNMENT.
BUT THEN ONCE JRI CONTROLLED THESE PROPERTIES, JRI HAD AN OBLIGATION TO TAKE CARE OF THESE PROPERTIES IN SUCH A WAY TO DELIVER REVENUE BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT.
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO FIND SOMEBODY TO LEASE THE PROPERTIES.
THAT WAS GOING TO BE LITERALLY FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF GOVERNMENT.
WE APPROVED THE SUBLEASE TO JFI.
THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS DONE BACK IN 2000.
WE'RE STILL UNDER THAT SYSTEM.
BUT NOW JFI HAS GONE AND SUBLEASE TO PORT AND GRANTED THE COUNCIL APPROVED LEASES IN OCTOBER OF 2023.
BUT THE STANDARDS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKED AT IS WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GETTING A FAIR DEAL ON THESE LEASES.
AND I DON'T SEE THAT ANYBODY EVER STOPPED TO ASK.
AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED ANYBODY.
WE HAVE NOT ASKED THE QUESTIONS, WHEN DID WE DECIDE THAT THE BEST DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY WAS A BREW PUB OVER ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT, ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE PUT THERE? WHEN DID WE DECIDE THAT A BREW PUB WAS THE BEST DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY BASED UPON A MARKET STUDY? WE GOT TO THE POINT THAT WE WERE PUTTING THE BREW PUB THERE AND THEN EVERYBODY CAME BEFORE THAT OCTOBER COUNCIL MEETING AND SAID, WE'RE GETTING A GREAT DEAL ON 3% AND 5%.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU IF I WENT ANYWHERE IN THE PARISH TO ANY BUSINESS OWNER AND SAY, YOU GET A NEW BUILDING WITH NEW EQUIPMENT, NO BASE RENT AND YOU ONLY OWE ME MONEY IF YOU MAKE MONEY, I THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE LINED UP TO OPERATE THE BUSINESS.
BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED.
AND SO THIS LEASE WAS APPROVED IN OCTOBER.
KIM, YOU YOU MADE A STATEMENT JUST A MOMENT AGO IN OCTOBER, AND I HAVEN'T GONE BACK TO LOOK AT THE OCTOBER MINUTES, WHICH I'M KIND OF SURPRISED I HAVEN'T WATCHED THE VIDEO YET, BUT, BUT IN OCTOBER YOU SAID THEY CAME OUT AND THE, YOU JUST USED THE TERM WE'RE GETTING A GREAT DEAL, UH, UH, FOR LEASE PAYMENTS.
BUT WHO IS WE THAT MADE THAT STATEMENT? IT WAS, IT CONVEYED TO THE PARISH COUNCIL.
JEFFERSON PARISH IS GETTING A GREAT DEAL.
IS JFI GETTING A GREAT DEAL? I MEAN THAT, AND I, I KNOW PRONOUNS CAN BE VAGUE, BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? UM, BEFORE THE PARISH COUNCIL CAME, JED CO WHO ENDORSED THE DEAL, AND THEY PROVIDED AN ECONOMIC STUDY THAT IT WAS A GOOD DEAL.
BUT THE NUMBERS ON THE ECONOMIC STUDY CAME FROM GNO AND JFI.
SO I DON'T, THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
[01:10:01]
FOR THOSE STUDIES.OF COURSE, THAT IS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO SEE TO LOOK FOR.
BUT WE KNEW IN LOOKING AT THOSE NUMBERS, JUST IN A CURSORY REVIEW, THEY WERE INCLUDING, THEY WERE TELLING THE JEFFERSON PARISH COUNCIL, THIS IS A GREAT DEAL, BUT THEY DID NOT TELL THE COUNCIL, WELL, WE HAVE INCLUDED THE STATE TAXES.
SO IT'S GONNA BE GREAT FOR THE STATE, AND WE HAVE INCLUDED TAXES THAT ARE GONNA BE PAID TO GRETNA AND YOU'RE NOT SEEING ANYTHING, BUT IT'S STILL A GREAT DEAL FOR YOU, FOR YOUR PROPERTY TO BUILD THIS BUILDING.
THAT WAS THEIR OPINION, GO THAT IT WAS A GREAT DEAL.
GNO INC WAS PART OF THE STUDY THAT WAS PRESENTED BY JET CO.
SO THE, THE PARISH'S TAX REVENUE BASE FOR THIS LEASE, UH, ASSUMING THOSE STATEMENTS ARE CORRECT, WOULD BE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES, IT'S PORTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, BECAUSE GRETNA WOULD GET A PORTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES, I ASSUME SO THE PARISH WOULD GET A PORTION OF THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT? YOU JUST LOST ME.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN, UH, IF A HOUSE SITS IN KENNER, OR LET'S SAY GRETNA GRETNA RECEIVES A PART OF THAT PROPERTY TAX BILL EVERY YEAR, AS DOES THE PARISH, IS THAT THE SAME FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY? I, MOVABLES VERSUS IMMOVABLE.
IN TERMS OF THE IMMOVABLE THAT THE PARISH IS GOING TO OWN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY PART, NOT IMMOVABLE, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MOVABLE? OH, GOT IT.
SO THE LAST POINT OF CONSIDERATION TO ASK SOMETHING YOU WANNA INTERJECT? I, THIS IS MY LAST SLIDE.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION BEING OUT THERE.
IT'S KIND OF HARD TO REMEMBER ALL AT THE END.
BUT MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD RECOMMEND, AND NORMALLY WE DON'T DO THIS, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT AS SOON AS KIM IS FINISHED, WE, WE PERMIT A RESPONSE IF, IF THAT'S WARRANTED.
WELL, SHE'S ABOUT TO FINISH RICKY, SO I, THAT WAY YOU'LL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
SO THE LAST SLIDE IS THE PUBLIC MEETING.
UM, THE PUBLIC MEETING LAW IS INTENDED TO PREVENT PRIVATE MEETINGS OF PUBLIC BODIES WHERE ONLY THE END RESULT IS PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC.
WHILE KEY DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATES OCCUR BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, UM, BECAUSE WE LEARNED AT THE OCTOBER 23 MEETING THAT THIS DEAL HAD BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, THEN OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS DELIBERATIONS, DECISIONS AND UNDERTAKINGS THAT HAPPEN FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE THE PUBLIC EVEN HEARD ABOUT IT.
NOW, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, LIKE A CONCEPT MIGHT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED, AND YOU DON'T KNOW IF THE CONCEPT IS GOING TO COME TO FRUITION.
BUT AT THE POINT IN TIME, AND WHEN THE COUNCIL BEGAN ACTING UPON RESOLUTIONS LEADING UP TO THIS DEAL IN MAY OF 2023, THEY CLEARLY HAD A PICTURE OF WHAT THE END RESULT WAS GOING TO BE.
AND THAT END RESULT WAS NOT SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC.
AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SO, UM, PORTAL LIENS WAS BROUGHT UP IN OCTOBER.
THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE KNEW PORTER WAS GOING TO GET THE LEASE.
YET PORTER WAS IN DISCUSSIONS FOR YEARS.
UM, THEY TALKED ABOUT GOING TO NASHVILLE AND BEING INSPIRED BY NASHVILLE, AND IT WAS, IT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION AT A PUBLIC MEETING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT ESSENTIALLY THE TRAIN HAD LEFT THE STATION AND THE PUBLIC WAS THE LAST TO KNOW.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC MEETING LAWS WERE FOLLOWED.
UM, OUR NEXT STEPS ARE GOING TO BE, UM, THIS WAS A, IT WAS A LOT TO AUTOPSY, UM, SOMETHING, THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT HAD BEEN AROUND FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS.
IT WAS A LOT TO CONSIDER THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE IN, OF THE ENTITIES INVOLVED.
UM, AND TO GET TO THIS POINT WHERE WE COULD DEVELOP A FOCUS AND TAKE NEXT STEPS, WHICH WOULD BE TO AUDIT, INVESTIGATE, AND EVALUATE.
SO TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE ATTENDING THEIR SECOND MEETING, YES, THIS IS A PUBLIC LETTER.
THIS IS NOT AN INVESTIGATION REPORT.
THIS DOES NOT SHOW US ANYTHING THAT WAS FOUND OUTSIDE OF INFORMATION THAT WAS IN PUBLIC RECORD.
SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, UM, AS WE ASK QUESTIONS.
BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THIS IS NOT AN INVESTIGATION THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THE OFFICE.
THIS IS A PUBLIC LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED.
WELL, MY ONLY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE WHAT IS THE PROCESS? WHAT STARTS FIRST, THIS LETTER, AND THEN WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP AND QUESTION?
[01:15:02]
UM, OUR NEXT STEPS WILL BE THAT WE WILL LIKELY, UM, ISSUE A LETTER REQUESTING AN ENTRANCE CONFERENCE WITH JFI AND JRI TO DISCUSS THE SCOPE AND THE UNDERTAKING OF AN AUDIT.UM, WE WILL ALSO BE ISSUING REQUESTS FOR RECORDS.
UM, AS WE WORKED THROUGH THE PUBLIC AVAILABLE INFORMATION, WE DEFINITELY IDENTIFIED HOLES THAT WERE NOT AVAILABLE, UM, INFORMATION THAT WOULD'VE, WE WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE HAD.
UM, AND SO WE WILL BE ISSUING RECORDS REQUEST, UM, TO THE VARIOUS ENTITIES AS WELL.
WHY DID WE START WITH THE PUBLIC LETTER? UM, IF I HAD NOT ISSUED THE PUBLIC LETTER, THEN WE WOULD'VE UNDERTAKEN AN AUDIT.
WE COULD HAVE UNDERTAKEN AN INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD'VE NECESSITATED ASKING FOR RECORDS AND INTERVIEWING PEOPLE.
AND THAT IS A TIMELINE I CAN'T ENTIRELY CONTROL BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEVEL OF COOPERATION IS.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEVEL OF AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS ARE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
WE ARE NOT SO FAR PAST AN OPPORTUNITY TO HIT PAUSE AND CONSIDER A CORRECTIVE COURSE.
SO THE LETTER HAD TO GET OUT IN FAIRNESS TO THE COUNCIL FOR THEM TO CONSIDER, IS THIS THE RIGHT MOVE AT THIS TIME? AND THIS WAS, THIS WAS AS GOOD AS WE COULD GET DONE BY THE TIME WE FINISHED PUTTING ALL THE PIECES TOGETHER.
UH, KIM, NOT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT I SUGGEST EVERYBODY GO TO PAGE 35 OF 35 AND READ THE THIRD TO LAST PARAGRAPH.
AND IF YOU WANT, I'LL READ IT OUT LOUD IN CONCLUSION.
THE J-P-O-I-G IS SOUNDING THE ALARM OVER LACK OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS, FINANCIAL RISK TO THE PARIS, THE POTENTIAL FOR EXCESSIVE SPENDING, AND THE APPARENT LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, UH, SURROUNDING THE CON, UH, THE CEAS AND THE APPROVAL OF THE PORTAL LIENS.
YOU NEEDED TO SOUND THE ALARM.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YES, I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THE WAY THAT THAT WAS HANDLED.
UH, THAT WHEN YOU SPEAK OF THE TRAIN LEAVING THE STATION, OKAY, YOU'VE DEFINITELY PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE HERE.
THERE'S BEEN NO INVESTIGATION, BUT THESE GUYS ENDED UP ON THE NEWS WITH NO BACKUP AFTER 35 PAGES, I'M EXPECTING SOMEONE TO BE ARRESTED OR HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MISSPENDING MONEY.
IT, IT CERTAINLY IS A NEGATIVE LOOK ON EVERYONE THAT'S INVOLVED.
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THE, THE WHAT HAS COME OUT THE WAY THAT YOUR OFFICE HAS HANDLED IT, THE WAY THAT IT WAS PERCEIVED AS DIRTY GOVERNMENT WITHOUT AN INVESTIGATION.
AND THAT'S THE, THAT DISAPPOINTED ME COMING FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.
LET ME ADDRESS ONE THING, AND I THINK IT'S VERY CRITICAL, AND THIS IS SPEAKING AS COUNSEL.
THERE'S A, A CRITICAL DISTINCTION THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE.
AND, AND THE WORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS BANDIED ABOUT AN AWFUL LOT TODAY, THE WORD ILLEGAL IN, IN MY 40 YEARS AS AN ATTORNEY, YOU DON'T USE THAT WORD, UH, BECAUSE THERE'S SPECIAL CONNOTATIONS TO THAT WORD.
AND, AND AGAIN, COMMISSIONER YOUNG, THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T AN INDICTMENT ON, ON THE DISCUSSION YOU HAD, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VIOLATION OF STATE LAWS AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT WOULD SUGGEST CRIMINAL ACTION WHATSOEVER TO VIOLATE PUBLIC BID LAWS, TO VIOLATE OPEN MEETINGS.
LAW DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO, TO, UM, CRIMINAL ACTION VIOLATIONS OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW CAN GIVE RISE TO, TO CONSEQUENCES.
WE SAW THAT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THAT THEY HAD TO GO BACK AND, AND REDO EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAD DONE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO IT CORRECTLY.
SO THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES, BUT THERE'S NOT CRIMINAL, THERE'S NO SUGGESTION.
AND CRIM, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DON'T READ ANY SUGGESTION IN HERE THAT A SINGLE PERSON IN THE PARISH OR THESE TWO ENTITIES COMMITTED ANY ACTS THAT WOULD RISE TO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
IS THAT CORRECT? SO I, THE ISSUE IS, IS IT, IS IT ISSUES THAT ADDRESS FRAUD, WASTE OR ABUSE, WHICH IS WHAT HER OFFICE IS CHARGED WITH.
BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO INDICT, NOR DOES SHE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN REFER WHEN
[01:20:01]
A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IS, IS WAS THIS CASE REFERRED? WAS THIS REFERRED? THERE'S NO REFERRAL.AND, AND TO THE BEST OF MY BELIEF, THERE IS NOTHING TO INVESTIGATE PER SE.
THE MONEY HAS NOT BEEN SPENT YET TO THE BEST OF MY BELIEF.
THE MONEY HAS NOT BEEN SPENT YET.
SO SINCE THE MONEY HAS NOT BEEN SPENT, WE STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH THESE LAWS.
IF I DON'T ISSUE THIS PUBLIC LETTER, THEN ATTENTION IS NOT CALLED TO THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE SPENDING PUBLIC FUNDS WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PUBLIC BID LAWS.
THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT OF ANYBODY.
AND SINCE I'M NEW, THIS IS HOW IT NORMALLY GOES.
SO, BUT PEOPLE SEEM TO BE CAUGHT OFF GUARD WITH THIS NORMALLY HOW IT GOES.
AND I, I'M GONNA, I'M GOING TO INTERJECT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT, UH, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS THE SECOND OR THIRD PUBLIC LETTER THAT'S EVER BEEN ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SINCE ITS INCEPTION.
UH, THERE HAVE BEEN ONLY TWO THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS THAT I'M AWARE OF, BOTH BY MS. SHADOWING.
ONE WAS, UH, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO ON ANOTHER MATTER, AND THIS IS A SECOND ONE.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS A NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
AND, AND ONE OF THE REASONS, AND, AND IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP BY, BY VARIOUS PEOPLE WHO CAME UP TO THE PODIUM TODAY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE WANTING TO VET A, UH, AN ISSUE THOROUGHLY.
YOU'RE WANTING TO ASK QUESTIONS, YOU'RE WANTING TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS.
SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE PUBLIC, THEY SEE EVERYTHING.
THERE IS A PUBLIC LETTER IS A AND IS, IS IS AN EXTREME, AND I'M GONNA SAY THIS AND KIM CAN CORRECT ME, BUT I THINK IT'S AN EXTREME DEPARTURE FROM WHAT NORMALLY IS DONE AND SHOULD BE DONE.
UH, AND IT'S PROACTIVE ONLY, YOU DON'T DO IT REACTIVELY.
YOU SHOULD NEVER, IN MY OPINION, ISSUE A LETTER AGAIN AFTER THE CART LEFT THE BARN.
UH, THAT'S WHEN YOU DO AN AUDIT.
THAT'S WHEN YOU DO AN INVESTIGATION.
THAT'S WHEN YOU DO AN EVALUATION.
SO AGAIN, IT, IT'S A, IT SHOULD BE USED VERY SPARINGLY.
I WOULD, I WOULD NOT EXPECT TO SEE THESE VERY OFTEN AT ALL.
IT'S LIKE OUR ADVISORY OPINIONS.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE ISSUED UNLESS THERE'S A REASON TO ISSUE THEM.
WE ARE NOT THE GOVERNING BODY.
WE ARE MERELY AN ADVISORY BODY WHEN IT COMES TO PARISH ACTIONS.
AND, UH, WE'RE THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
HER JOB IS TO OVERSEE FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE AND, AND PROVIDE REPORTS AND AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIONS AND EVALUATIONS.
THIS IS A SPECIALIZED THING THAT WE DON'T SEE.
AND I, AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY, I DON'T THINK WE'LL SEE A LOT OF THEM, BUT, BUT IT INVOLVES $10 MILLION AND IT'S A PROACTIVE MEASURE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID CONCERNS ME, UM, IF I READ THIS CORRECTLY, SINCE 2,015 MILLION HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT, HAS IT NOT SINCE 2000.
ON ON PAGE ONE, THE THIRD, THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM THERE WAS 9.3 MILLION TO BUILD A GARAGE.
THERE WAS 11 MILLION THAT THE PARISH ALREADY PAID, AND ANOTHER 4.4 EXPECTED.
SO HAS NOT, THE PARISH ALREADY SPENT $15 MILLION.
JFI RECEIVED NONILLION BASED UPON THE BOND ISSUANCE.
SO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT WAS NON AND SOME CHANGE.
JEFFERSON PARISH, I GOTTA STOP USING PRONOUNS.
JEFFERSON PARISH PAID OFF THE DEBT THUS FAR.
IF WE CONTINUE TO PAY OFF THAT DEBT, THERE'S ABOUT ANOTHER 4.6 OUTSTANDING.
SO THAT IS THE MONEY I, AND I THINK IT COMES CLOSE TO 16 MILLION.
IF WE END UP BY CONTINUING FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS, LIKE WE HAVE FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS, WE WILL PAY ABOUT 16 MILLION FOR THE $9 MILLION GARAGE THAT JFI BUILT.
WELL, BUT THE POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS, EARLIER YOU SAID JEFFERSON, PARIS HAS NOT SPENT ANY MONEY, AND I THINK I SUBMIT TO YOU, THEY'VE ALREADY SPENT 10, AT LEAST ON, ON THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
YES, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE MONEY ON THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
WELL, HAS THE 34 AND THE 4 25 BEEN SPENT, OR DO WE KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF AN AUDIT? OKAY, SO WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
SO IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SPENT.
SO I HEAR SOUNDING THE ALARM RIGHT.
OCTOBER, 2023 IS WHEN THE OFFICE STARTED TO
[01:25:01]
LOOK INTO THIS, CORRECT? SOMETIME AFTER THAT, YES.WHAT PROMPTED THAT? I ATTENDED THE COUNCIL MEETING, THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, AND IT WAS CLEAR TO ME AT THAT TIME, BASED UPON THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED BY THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, THAT WHAT THE QUESTIONS THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE ASKING AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS BEING PROVIDED JUST WAS NOT LINING UP.
I'M NOT GONNA SAY I KNEW ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY, THEN I WOULD, IT JUST WAS NOT LINING UP.
WHEN I CAME TO THE PARISH, THE CONCEPT OF JEFFERSON REDEVELOPMENT AND JEFFERSON FACILITIES INC.
NOTHING NEW OR DIFFERENT WAS GOING ON ABOUT IT.
IT WAS LITERALLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF MYSELF.
IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF MY PREDECESSOR.
NOTHING WAS DONE WITH IT, BUT THE, BUT PEOPLE WERE ALREADY QUESTIONING THE RELATIONSHIP.
SO WHEN THE MEETING HAPPENED IN OCTOBER OF 2023, I HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE 8.6 THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN IN DECEMBER.
BUT I CAME BACK TO THE OFFICE AND WAS LIKE, WE NEED, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS.
UM, EVERYBODY IN THE OFFICE IS ALREADY ASSIGNED WORK, ASSIGNED CASES, ASSIGNED AUDITS, LIKE THE YEAR WAS ALREADY MAPPED OUT.
BUT I SAID, WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO LOOK AT THIS IN BETWEEN AND ON TOP OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
I DID NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT ALL I WOULD LEARN IN UNRAVELING IT.
I JUST COULD SEE THINGS WERE NOT LINING UP LIKE THEY SHOULD BE LINING UP IN A PUBLIC MEETING.
MADAM CHAIR, I, I DO THINK AS A COURTESY, SINCE MR. TEMPLATE IS HERE AND STOOD UP, WE SHOULD HEAR A BRIEF RESPONSE.
UH, KEEPING IN MIND THAT WE DO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION STILL TO, TO PROCEED.
AND THANK YOU IF ALLOWING ME JUST TO ADDRESS A COUPLE CONCERNS THAT I KNOW I CAN ANSWER.
UH, AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW Y'ALL PROTOCOL BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, I'VE NEVER BEEN TO ONE OF Y'ALL MEETINGS, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS, AND I SAW IT ON THE NEWS THIS MORNING BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE, UH, THEY, THEY SHOWED TO WHERE I STATED, GOVERNMENTS SHOULD RUN MORE LIKE A BUSINESS.
AND, UH, ALL Y'ALL PROBABLY SAW IT ON CHANNEL LATE THIS MORNING.
THAT WAS A QUOTE THEY, THEY PUT ON THERE BECAUSE OF THE STORY, UH, THAT'S TAKEN PLACE.
BUT, BUT GOVERNMENT DOESN'T AND ISN'T A BUSINESS, OKAY? THE THINGS WE DO, THE SERVICES WE GIVE ARE TO THE PUBLIC AS A SERVICE.
THE EOC IS THERE FOR A SERVICE NOT TO MAKE A PROFIT.
THE GARAGE IS THERE FOR A SERVICE NOT TO MAKE A PROFIT.
OVER 85% OF THAT GARAGE IS MO USED FOR JURY DUTY JUDGES, LAW ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
IT'S FOR SERVICES FOR THE PUBLIC.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO GENERATE AN INCOME FOR THE PARISH.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO PAY ITS DEBT.
UH, BUT, UH, FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO THAT.
BUT YOU CAN'T PAY YOUR DEBT WHEN YOU HAVE 85% OF YOUR PARKING BEING USED BY THE PEOPLE WHO IT'S SERVING THE PUBLIC.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, TO GET THAT WE SHOULD BE MAKING A PROFIT OFF OF EVERYTHING WE DO IS NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT TO MAKE.
UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF, A LOT OF QUOTES THAT, UH, INFORMATION THAT WOULD SPIT OUT, AND IT'S KIND OF HARD TO REMEMBER, REMEMBER 'EM ALL.
BUT WHAT I KNOW OF, UH, PORT ALL LIENS IS PUTTING $2.5 MILLION OF THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT INTO THIS FACILITY.
I DON'T KNOW, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT TONIGHT.
I HEARD THE PARISH WAS PAYING FOR ALL THE EQUIPMENT.
OKAY? YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
WHEN, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT TAXES, YES, THEY WON'T PAY PROPERTY TAX, BUT THEY WILL PAY TAX ON INVENTORY TAX AND IT WILL PAY TAX ON EQUIPMENT TAX EACH AND EVERY YEAR, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS DOES.
AND THE PARISH WILL GET ITS SHARE AND THE CITY OF GRETTON WILL GET ITS SHARE.
THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR OWN PROPERTY TAXES, UH, PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING SAID.
I DON'T KNOW HOW, IF YOU INVESTIGATING SOMETHING YOU DON'T KNOW THAT ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS CALL YOUR ASSESSOR, UM, GOING FORWARD ON RENT, I KEEP HEARING ABOUT A LEASE THAT'S SIGNED THAT'S, THAT'S GENERATING RENT.
SO HOW DO YOU SAY IT'S NOT MAKING ANY MONEY TO HELP PAY BILLS? IF THAT MONEY'S GOING TO J-J-J-O-I, THAT'S TO GO HELP OFFSET THE BOND PAYMENTS
[01:30:01]
THAT I KNOW OF.UH, SO IT'S GENERATING AN INCOME, BE IT 6% OF GROSS GROSS REVENUE OR, OR NOT.
IT MAYBE THE FIRST 30, UH, 30 MONTHS IS 3%.
OKAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU HAVE TO GIVE INCENTIVES SOMETIMES FOR BUSINESSES TO COME, COME TO YOUR BACKYARD AND PLAY.
I I SAID I, I WASN'T PART OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, BUT I'M NOT AN INSPECTOR OR A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR OR AN IG, BUT I CAN MAKE PHONE CALLS AND THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE THIS LETTER WENT OUT.
OKAY? UH, WHILE WE'RE WORRYING ABOUT WHAT RENT IS BEING GENERATED OR NOT BEING GENERATED, THE IGS OFFICE IS PAYING RENT.
THEY COULD BE USING A GOVERNMENT BUILDING FOR FREE.
I OFFERED THAT A BUILDING ON THE WEST BANK THAT WAS SITTING VACANT.
AND TO SAVE TAX DOLLARS MONEY, I OFFERED A BUILDING THAT WE HAD AVAILABLE SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY RENT OUTTA IGS OFFICE.
AS FAR AS THIS LETTER, THIS IS THE ONLY SECOND TIME THAT A LETTER HAS BEEN SENT OUT LIKE THIS.
AND I'M GONNA TELL YOU, I TAKE OFFENSE OF IT BECAUSE BOTH TIMES IT ATTACKED THE WEST BANK.
OKAY? LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS WASN'T AN ISSUE THAT WAS STRICTLY EAST BANK OR WEST BANK.
IT WAS STRICTLY WEST BANK ISSUES.
AND YOU, YOU, YOU'RE HURTING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO DRIVE ECONOMIC ENGINES.
WHEN YOU TRY TO ATTACK THE ISSUES LIKE THIS.
YOU HEARD FROM A STATE REP OR TWO STATE REPS ACTUALLY TODAY THAT BELIEVE IN THIS PROJECT.
YOU, YOU, YOU HAD A, UH, A LETTER FROM JET CO, WHICH, UH, THEY COULDN'T MAKE THE MEETING TODAY, BUT SUPPORTING THIS, THE CHAMBER, EVERY COUNCIL PERSON HAS PAID, VOTED ON THIS.
EVEN THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN OCTOBER, THE COUNCIL VOTED AND PASSED.
THIS IS WHAT I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M REFERRING WHAT THE IG IS BROUGHT UP.
SO SOUNDING AN ALARM EVERY TIME IT'S PUT ON THE AGENDA, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO SOUND THE ALARM.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
OKAY? SO I JUST SOUNDING AN ALARM OR DOING A TRUE INVESTIGATION, I, I DON'T THINK THE PROPER PROTOCOL WAS DONE HERE TO MAKE SURE YOU PROTECT THE PROCESS AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND, AND OUR CITIZENS.
SO I APPRECIATE IT AND THANK YOU.
LOOK, EXCUSE ME, I'VE BEEN HAVING A FROG IN MY THROAT ALL DAY.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESSES OF THINGS, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED.
THE FIRST TIME I WAS ELECTED TO OFFICE OF MY LIFE, I WAS 27 YEARS OLD.
MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF MY ADULT LIFE HAS BEEN SPENT IN PUBLIC SERVICE.
I, I'LL BRING ONE FOR INSTANCE, WHEN I THOUGHT A NEW RECREATION CENTER SHOULD BE BUILT IN GRETNA, BEFORE ANY PUBLIC CONVERSATION ON THIS THING, THE FIRST PERSON I WENT TO WAS MY COLLEAGUE COUNCILMAN TEMPLATE.
I SAID, RICKY, WE HAVE X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS THAT WE IN THE BANK THAT WE COULD PUT TOWARDS THIS PROJECT.
ARE YOU ON BOARD? TALK TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
TALK A YEAR LATER, THERE MAY BE A MEETING BETWEEN TWO COUNCILMEN AND THE MAYOR, TWO COUNCILMEN AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR.
AND THEN FINALLY A YEAR LATER, AFTER PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS, YOU DO HAVE A PRODUCT THAT YOU COULD BRING TO THE PUBLIC.
THAT'S HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS IN BATON ROUGE.
SEPARATE CAUCUSES, MEET IN PRIVATE, TALK ABOUT A BILL.
HOW I'M GONNA AMEND THIS BILL? SHOULD WE KILL THIS BILL? OKAY, THAT CAN GO ON FOR THREE MONTHS BEFORE IT GOES TO COMMITTEE.
THAT'S THE WAY GOVERNMENT WORKS.
YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND POOF, HAVE EVERYTHING READY AND GO.
AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE PROCESS.
AND WHAT REALLY AGGRAVATED ME ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING, AND I'M SORRY YOU HAVE THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S NAMES UP HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAMES, BUT GENTLEMEN HERE, WE BROUGHT UP HOW THIS LETTER CAME OUT.
THE COUNCIL IS TOLD, YOU KNOW, NOT TO DISCUSS IT, BUT IT'S ON TV, OKAY? YOU'RE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL TODAY.
EVERYBODY WHO'S ADVOCATED FOR THIS PROJECT IS A CRIMINAL RIGHT NOW, TODAY, BECAUSE OF THIS LETTER, I SPENT HALF MY DAMN YEAR IN BATON ROUGE FOR $16,000 A YEAR.
HALF MY LIFE AWAY FROM MY FAMILY, $16,000 A YEAR.
OKAY? EVERY READ THE COMMENTS, LOOK AT IT, SHARED BY ALL THE CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS WE'RE CRIMINALS, WE'RE GUILTY ALREADY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS
[01:35:01]
REPORT CAME OUT.I'M JUST A FIRE CHIEF, BUT I'M A CITIZEN OF JEFFERSON PARISH AND I'M ASKING THE FOUR OF YOU TO DO THIS.
I'M NOT HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THAT'S A GOOD PROJECT OR NOT.
I'M NOT AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TYPE PERSON, BUT I KNOW AS A CITIZEN IN 2013, WE VOTED TO HAVE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL AND TO DO THAT JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S HONOR, INTEGRITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND HONESTY OF OUR POLITICAL LEADERS.
THAT'S ALL THIS LADY DID TODAY.
I WATCHED HER STAND IN THE FRONT OF THAT COUNCIL MEETING AND BASICALLY GET DRUGGED, AND I GOT TO GIVE IT TO HER.
I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD HAVE STOOD THERE WITH THE PATIENCE THAT SHE GAVE.
SHE STOOD THERE AND TOOK IT ON THE CHIN AND KEPT GOING.
SHE DID THE JOB THAT WE, THE CITIZENS ASKED FOR.
CAN YOU SIT THERE RIGHT NOW TONIGHT AND SAY, I AGREE WITH WHAT THE, THE REPRESENTATIVE SAID IN THIS, THIS MANNER.
CITIZENS ARE VERY UNTRUSTING OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
SO THEY DO PUT THINGS ON FACEBOOK AND SOCIAL MEDIA.
AS A FIRE CHIEF, I FACE THAT EVERY DAY IN THE COMMUNITY I SERVE AND I HAVE TO GO OUT AND I HAVE TO TRY TO QUELL IT, CALM IT DOWN.
WE ARE NOT BEING NUCLEAR ATTACKED.
SO THAT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT I AS A FIRE CHIEF AND THESE GENTLEMEN OR LADIES THAT TAKE A JOB AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, THAT WE HAVE TO FACE THAT, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
BUT WE AS CITIZENS WANT THAT LADY, HER STAFF AND THE FOUR OF YOU TO JUST KEEP THINGS ABOVE BOARD.
AND THAT, THAT TONIGHT AND EVERYTHING I'VE HEARD, I DID HEAR SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DOESN'T TELL YOU YOU'RE BEING INVESTIGATED.
WELL, I'LL STAND HERE AND I'LL TELL YOU, I WAS A POLICEMAN FOR THE JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
WHEN THE FBI INVESTIGATED US, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE FOUND OUT, WHEN THEY EITHER EXONERATED US OR THEY WERE TAKING US TO COURT, THEY NEVER TAPPED US ON THE SHOULDER AND SAID, HEY, WE LOOKING AT YOU FOR SUCH AND SUCH.
THEY DID AN INVESTIGATION WHEN IT REVEALED THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR A VIOLATION OF LAW, THEN THEY TOLD YOU THE PROCESS SHE TOOK.
MAYBE THERE CAN BE SOME THINGS THAT MAKE IT BETTER.
MAYBE THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE IT WORSE.
BUT I DO THINK SHE DID DUE DILIGENCE TO SEE IF THERE WAS A VIOLATION.
SHE ADMITTED AT THE VERY COUNCIL MEETING THAT SHE DID NOT USE THE TERM ILLEGAL, NOR DID SHE FEEL THERE WAS A CRIMINAL ACT.
SHE JUST ASKED THE QUESTION AND MADE THIS OUT.
SO I'M ASKING YOU, NOT AS A FIRE CHIEF, I'M ASKING YOU AS BRIAN MILLER, A CITIZEN, JUST LOOK AT IT FOR WHAT IT IS THAT, THAT WE WANT HER OR ANYBODY.
HER PREDECESSOR, HIS NAME WAS, AND WE ALL KNOW HIS NAME.
I USED TO TELL HIM HE WAS JOHN WAYNE.
'CAUSE HE WAS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ACTOR.
'CAUSE EVEN JOHN WAYNE WAS A MCCLINTOCK ON TELEVISION.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED AS CITIZENS IS SOMEBODY THAT TRIES ON OUR BEHALF.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEW MINUTES OF TIME.
A COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT.
THE IG REFERENCE, THE GIFT OR DONATION, UH, IF, IF ANYTHING, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE MONEY COMES THE OBLIGATION UPON JFI, HARD TIME HEARING ME AGAIN THERE.
THE OBLIGATION UPON JFI TO SPEND THAT MONEY AND DO CERTAIN THINGS WITH IT, IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S THEIRS TO, TO GO ON VACATION WITH OR WHATEVER.
IT'S NOT A DONATION, IT'S NOT A GIFT.
OKAY? AND JFI HAS TO DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THAT MONEY.
AT THIS POINT, AND I KNOW KIM PROBABLY HAS OTHER THINGS TO TALK ABOUT WITH HER REPORT, BUT GIVEN THAT THE, THE TIME IS NOW SIX 40, MAY I RECOMMEND THAT SHE DEFER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT WE COULD PROCEED WITH THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH IS, IS IMPORTANT THAT WE PROCEED.
IS THERE ADDITION TO YOUR REPORT? DO YOU MIND? THE ONLY OTHER PRESENTATION THAT I HAVE IS ON OUR ANNUAL WORK PLAN, AND I'M HAPPY TO DEFER IT TO ANOTHER MEETING OR DEFER IT ENTIRELY.
[VI. Executive Session for consideration of ethical violation by official, and; discussion of performance review ]
YOU.WE WILL NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE TWO MATTERS THAT ARE SET FORTH ON THE AGENDA.
UH, WE'LL NEED A MOTION, A SECOND, AND THEN A ROLL CALL.
PLEASE MOVE TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
[01:40:01]
CLEMENT? DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.