FullWidth

President's Report-May 16, 2023

PROPOSED LITIGATION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ET AL

This matter appears under Item 1 of the Agenda for the Administrative/Finance Committee Meeting.  I was recently contacted by Nicol Hebert, an Assistant Attorney General with the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, requesting that St. Martin Parish join in litigation against several parties including the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”).  The Attorney General has prepared a draft complaint (lawsuit) on behalf of the State of Louisiana for filing in the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans), a replica of which was transmitted to me by Attorney Hebert.

The litigation challenges the propriety of a new pricing methodology for flood insurance secured through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  In 2021, FEMA adopted a pricing system is known as “Risk Rating 2.0-Equity in Action.” The by-product of the new pricing system is that flood insurance rates for special flood zones will be subject to annual increases and could possibly become unaffordable under the formula set forth in the rating system.

The Attorney General asserts that FEMA did not have the authority, acting solely as an Administrative Agency without legislative oversight or input, to establish a new rating system.  Additionally, certain procedures for the adoption of administrative rules were not followed including public notice and comment periods.  Further, the AG likewise alleges an impairment of vested rights is inherent in the new “pricing rules” because of the lack of any “grandfather provisions” in Risk Rating 2.0.

It is my understanding that the Parishes of Acadia, Ascension, Assumption, Avoyelles, Lafourche, Livingston, Madison, Plaquemines, St. Charles, St. James, St. Mary, Washington, and Terrebonne have joined in the litigation.

From a pragmatic and somewhat cryptic perspective, what is concerning to many is the complexity inherent in the methodology of Risk Rating 2.0 by which insurance rates will heretofore be determined.  Most assuredly, and somewhat understandably, there will be increases in the national flood insurance rates as a consequence of the major weather events which the entire country has experienced.

Noteworthy are the steps taken by United States Senator John Kennedy who has challenged FEMA relative to Risk Rating 2.0.  In fact, Senator Kennedy has introduced two separate bills designed to address flood insurance rates vis-à-vis the Risk Rating 2.0 program.  One bill would mandate that FEMA publish an explanation of how the agency determines flood insurance costs under Risk Rating 2.0., specifically detailing the methodology of Risk Rating 2.0.  The other legislation, known as the Flood Insurance Affordability Act, would cap annual flood insurance premium increases.  Hence, the wisdom of litigation before any adjudication of the pending legislation may be suspect.  I will attempt to speak with Attorney Hebert on this observation before the committee meeting.

For your easy reference, I attach some data on this issue which my limited research efforts have produced. 

Please note that at this juncture, I have formed no opinion about the proposed litigation.  Indeed, a great deal of additional research would seem to be indicated.

 

COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE VISIT BY FEMA

While on the subject of the National Flood Insurance Program, on May 24, 2023, FEMA is schedule to conduct Community Assistance Visit (“CAV”) with the Parish.  A CAV is an inspection by a representative of FEMA for the dual purposes of providing technical assistance to Parish relative to the implementation of its floodplain regulations AND to review permit records to ensure that all floodplain ordinances are being enforced.  Generally, a CAV consists of a tour of the floodplain, an inspection/audit of community permit files, and meetings/interviews with administrative officials.  In order to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, a Parish must have a floodplain ordinance that meets basic FEMA guidelines.  Our floodplain ordinances have recently been revised and comports with FEMA guidelines.

If any administrative problems or potential violations are identified during a CAV, the Parish will be notified and afforded the opportunity to adopt remedial steps within a specified period of time.  CAV audits are usually every three years.

Of course, we will have our floodplain administrator, Claire Darby of BCIS available to respond to any questions presented by the FEMA representatives. Likewise, I have arranged my schedule to ensure my availability.

 

REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF “PUBLIC ROADS”-ITEM 4 OF AGENDA OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Item 4 of the Public Works Agenda has been prompted by a request the Parish abandon several roads which have allegedly been dedicated to the Parish.  The factual scenario surrounding the alleged dedication is as follows.  In 1979, Raymond Victor Foti recorded a plat of survey of a “subdivision” delineated as “St. James Subdivision, Phase II.”  Only a portion of the subdivision was actually developed, however.  Consequently, several roads depicted on the plat were never constructed.

The property and roads which were not developed were ultimately acquired by Haven Dean Hayes who now through his counsel requests that the Parish formally abandon those roads which have never been constructed.  Mr. Hayes’ attorney contends that under the provisions of La. R.S. 33:5051, the mere recordation of a subdivision plat by a developer is sufficient to “dedicate” a road even if the street is not formally accepted by the Parish. This sort of dedication is commonly referred to in legal parlance as a “statutory dedication.” In my view, a “statutory dedication” of road does not and cannot materialize until such a road is actually constructed.  Furthermore, under the clear language of La. R.S. 33:5051, an essential component of a statutory dedication is a formal, written declaration by the owner that all streets depicted on the recorded plat are for public use.  No such statement or declaration is reflected by the materials presented by either Mr. Hays or his counsel.   

 Therefore, I am of the opinion that there has never been any sort of dedication of the roads in questions for the foregoing reasons including not only the absence of any declaration by the owner of a dedication, but also because of the fact that the such streets in question were never constructed.  Nevertheless, I see no cogent reason the Parish cannot execute an instrument acknowledging that the Parish has never accepted formally, informally, or otherwise any of the roads in question and that the Parish has never performed any sort of maintenance of such roads.  Further, as part of any “abandonment document,” the owner should declare or affirm that none of the roads were ever constructed or subject to any public maintenance.

Mr. Durand, our counsel, is aware of this matter, and I have requested he be prepared to answer any questions you may have regarding this matter.

 

OPIOID SETTLEMENT UPDATE

Last month, I advised that the Opioid Taskforce has received and deposited in a trust account the first tranche of money paid in connection with the settlement of the national opioid litigation.  In previous reports, I set forth for your edification an explanation of the parameters of the settlement and the role of the Opioid Taskforce which was created via the Attorney General’s Office, as required by the terms of the settlement.

As previously noted, the Parish’s share of the settlement proceeds over an 18-year period will be $2,730,000 with each annual payment to the Parish being 151,666.67.  The allotment will be shared between the Parish and Sheriff on an 80% /20% basis.  Of import is that all proceeds received by the Sheriffs and participating political subdivisions MUST BE USED FOR OPIOID TREATMENT, INTERVENTION, AND/OR PREVENTION. The first payment, representing two years, to be received by St. Martin Parish Government is $230,067.91 after deduction of the sheriff’s 20% and payment of the administrative expenses mandated by the settlement accord.  The Sheriff shall receive $57,516.98.

On April 24, 2023, I sponsored a meeting among representatives of the Sheriff’s Office, Dr. Tina Stefanski, Regional Director of the Louisiana Department of Health, the District Attorney, and Council Member Carla JeanBatiste in her capacity as our representative on the board of the Acadiana Human Services District.  Candidly, I was somewhat surprised about the level of understanding many of the stakeholders possessed relative to the settlement.  As such, our discourse was very general and focused upon the history of the litigation which led to the settlement, the role of the Taskforce, and permitted uses of the settlement proceeds.   On April 28, 2023, the Opioid Taskforce met in Baton Rouge and discussed, among other matters, the misunderstanding of many local governing authorities and officials regarding the nature of the settlement and limited uses of the proceeds.  This is an issue common to most jurisdictions.  Therefore, under Item 2 of the Administrative/Finance Committee meeting, I will be presenting a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Opioid Litigation and the ensuing settlement. Hopefully, this will impart information to the public and dispel any heretofore incorrect perceptions which may have evolved.

To aid in the presentation, I submit the following synopsis from prior reports which may prompt and/or answer questions which surface during the presentation.  Much of this information is contained in my prior reports of October 2022, and January 2023.

In early 2018, the Parish Council elected to participate in class action litigation involving the opioid crisis.  Shortly afterwards, the Attorney General instituted similar litigation on behalf of the State of Louisiana.  In the Fall of 2021, two proposed nationwide settlement agreements were reached which resolved all opioid litigation against the three largest pharmaceutical distributors, McKesson, Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its parent company, Johnson & Johnson. 

Under the terms of the compromise, the settlement funds which total approximately $26 billion for all states will be divided over eighteen years among the participating states according to a formula developed by the Attorney Generals based in large measure upon population and documented harm caused by the epidemic in each state.  Each state’s share is then further allocated within the state’s political subdivisions which participated in the litigation.

Attorney General Jeff Landry cited several compelling reasons as bases for each political subdivision to opt-in (agree) to the settlement including:

  1. The amounts paid under the settlement, while insufficient to abate the epidemic fully, will nonetheless allow state and local governments to commence with meaningful programs to curb opioid addiction, overdose, and death;
  2. Time was of the essence. The opioid epidemic continues to negatively impact our communities.
  3. If there was not sufficient political subdivision participation, the settlement would not have been finalized and more than 3,000 suits would have been sent back to courts for time consuming and costly litigation;
  4. The extent of participation determines the amount each state and its political subdivisions will receive since approximately one-half of the abatement funds are in the form of “incentive payments”; i.e., the higher the participation rate in the settlement, the larger the amount which each state receives;
  5. The opioid crisis is a national issue that warrants a national, consistent approach to its abatement; and
  6. Other defendants remain in litigation; thus, the infusion of proceeds now will allow abatement steps against other defendants to proceed.

It is significant to note that St. Martin Parish’s share is .84% of Louisiana’s share which has been determined/verified based upon the formula established by the settlement terms.  Moreover, the settlement proceeds will be channeled into treatment and educational modalities which initially was established on a regional basis.

On December 2, 2021, the Council adopted Resolution Number 21-091-RS approving of the settlement and authorizing the execution of documents and attestations associated therewith.

As a consequence of the settlement, and pursuant to legislative edicts, a task force was formed to administer the settlement proceeds.  By virtue of action of the Attorney General that task force evolved into an entity labeled, “Opioid Abatement Administration Corporation.”  This organization will be governed by a five-member board and will have the obligation to administer the settlement proceeds received by the State of Louisiana and to ensure that the funds are properly distributed and expended appropriately. 

Under the terms of the settlement, all proceeds are disturbed as follows:

          7.5% for attorney fees

          3% for Administrative Fees

          20% to the Louisiana Sheriffs

69.5% to the political subdivisions of the State which participated in the settlement

The settlement will be funded over a period of eighteen years.  St. Martin Parish’s share over the 18 years will be $2,730,000 with each annual payment to the Parish being $151,666.67.  All proceeds received by the Sheriffs and participating political subdivisions MUST BE USED FOR OPIOID TREATMENT, INTERVENTION, AND PREVENTION.

I have the honor of having been selected to serve on the Board of the Opioid Abatement Administration Corporation, and in fact was elected as the President.  The other members are David Butler (Mayor of Woodworth), Sheriff K.P. Gibson of Acadia Parish, Dr. James Hussey, and Dr. Arwen Podesta.  Both of the physicians are Behavioral Health experts

Subsequent to the foregoing, I received and reviewed the settlement documents and exhibits which are attached thereto. Furthermore, the first public meeting of the Taskforce took place in Baton Rouge on Friday, January 13, 2023.  I submit that the most significant aspect of that meeting addressed the following acute issues.

As was mentioned at the outset of the January 13th meeting, and pursuant to a conference on January 5, 2023, among the Attorney General’s Office, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class action litigation, the executive counsel for the Taskforce, and myself, the AG’s representative and the plaintiffs’ attorneys emphatically declared that the intent behind the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), which sets forth the terms of the opioid settlement, was that all of the allotments due each Parish as  set forth in Exhibit B of the agreement be paid DIRECTLY to the local governmental units as defined in the MOU.  Unfortunately, this oral declaration of intent does not in my view comport with the express language of the MOU.

Under the terms of the MOU in Section 3, there are primarily three classifications of local governmental units as regards the allocation of the settlement proceeds:

“Qualified Parishes” defined in Section A(11) of the MOU as the parishes in the state with a population of 300,000 or more.  There are only three such parishes: East Baton Rouge, Orleans, and Jefferson;

The Sheriffs of the Parishes; and

All other Parishes.

Section C(1)(d) of the MOU provides that the Qualified Parish’s share, including the Municipalities within that Parish, will be paid to the Qualified Parish…”  However, in Section C(1)( e), the MOU states:

“For all other Parishes, the funds allocated for those Parishes and Municipalities shall be paid on a regional basis consistent with the Louisiana Department of Health Regions, as set forth in Exhibit B.  The regional share of the funds will be paid to the designated Parish as set forth in Exhibit B and expended for Approved Purposes…”.

The last page of Exhibit B to the MOU identifies the “Lead Parish” for each LDH region.  As an aside, the Lead Parish for our LDH region is Lafayette Parish.

The conflict between the oral statement of intent and the written language of the MOU is further amplified by Section B(7) of the latter which requires that the Lead Parish submit an annual report which must include the amounts received by each parish within its region and the program(s) for which the disbursements were used.

In view of the foregoing, the Taskforce was initially confronted with resolving or determining whether the Lead Parish should receive the amounts allocated for all the Parishes within its respective LDH region or whether each of the “non-qualified” parishes should receive directly the allocation set forth In Exhibit B of the MOU.  There were suggestions that the three “qualified parishes” and sheriffs received their designated allotments immediately since there is no ambiguity created by the conflict between the orally expressed intent and terms of the MOU.  For the reasons set forth below, I rebuffed such proposals taking the positions we should not favor one jurisdiction over another. After entertaining discourse on this issue, the Taskforce approved the distribution of the allotments identified in Exhibit B to each Parish, Sheriff, and qualified Parish contingent upon the Lead Parishes’ written concurrence. 

As a Taskforce, we were and remain eager to disburse the allotments.  Indeed, despite the conflict highlighted herein, it seems without question that the “Qualified Parishes” and “Sheriffs” were entitled to their respective allotments carte blanch. Nonetheless, it appeared patently unfair that some governmental units would receive disbursements while others would not. As I noted at the Taskforce meeting on January 13, 2023, the ambiguity of the MOU, as regards the stated oral intent, seem to have had no effect on larger Parishes.

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023, the Taskforce’s executive counsel, Loren Lampert, and I had a conference with the Lead Parishes together with representatives of the Louisiana Police Jury Association including the Executive Director, Guy Cormier.  Every “Lead Parish” concurred that EACH parish should indeed receive its allotment DIRECTLY.  Meanwhile, we are working on developing a mechanism to amend the MOU to clarify this particular issue, and others which are not germane at this point in time.

As a consequence of that conference, Cooperative Endeavor Agreements were prepared by Mr. Lampert and Debbie Henton of the PJAL, and circulated to all Parishes and Sheriff’s.  A critical component of the CEA’s were provisions that clarified the ambiguity/conflicts of the MOU, clearing the way for disbursements to all Parishes.  Specially, each CEA memorializes the Lead Parishes’ concurrences in the distribution of allotments DIRECTLY to each Parish. 

The CEA’s referenced above are currently being signed and returned as I prepare this report.

The focal points of the presentation will be the permitted uses of the settlement allotments received and questions regarding the payment of attorney fees, an issue which has recently surfaced.  Also, at your June meeting, I will ask that you authorize the Chairperson for the Council to sign the CEA for St. Martin Parish.  I postulate that it would be improper for me to sign same since I am both a member of, and the President/Chair for, the taskforce.

 

HEALTH UNIT CONSOLIDATION/RELOCATION OF TOURISM OFFICE

In November, 2022, I noted that:

“In 2020, I realized that there was no valid reason to continue the operation of two separate health units, one in Breaux Bridge and one in Cecilia.  Indeed, I refer you to my report from January 2021, wherein I stated:

“Since the first of the year, there have been several personnel changes within Parish Government.  We have reduced the number of employees at our water plant and as alluded to previously, replaced the Planning and Zoning Coordinator.  Additionally, I have closely studied our health units and determined that we are over-staffed.  Thus, one LPN position was eliminated.  Also, there does not appear to be a cogent reason to continue to have a health unit in both Breaux Bridge and Cecilia.  Currently, both are not open at the same time.  Furthermore, the is a community clinic at St. Martin Hospital which will soon feature a pediatric nurse practitioner.  Thus, I am developing a plan whereby we will close one of the facilities in the next several months which I am convinced will be save costs without compromise to services.’

My plans were thwarted by the myriad of issues which were presented by the COVID-19 Pandemic.  I am now proceeding, however, with that original plan with the following modifications.

The Parish Tourism Department is currently operating from the premises of a former “beauty salon” in Breaux Bridge.  The Tourism Department shares those premises with the St. Martin Economic Development Authority.  Indeed, both of these governmental units work jointly on many endeavors.  These lease for the premises is the object of Item 2 of the Agenda for the Administrative/Finance Committee Meeting. 

It should be noted that the building is much too small and is poorly configured to accommodate the needs of either Tourism or SMEDA, much less both of them.  Hence, my plan is to close the Breaux Bridge Health Unit and relocate all services to the Cecilia site.  Then, the Department of Tourism will relocate to the vacated Breaux Bridge Health Unit which is situated at the intersection of La. 347 (Poydras Street) and Bridge Street in Breaux Bridge.  In this connection, on Monday, November 7, 2022, our Tourism Director, SMEDA Director, and I toured the building with an architect, and it was determined that, with modest renovation efforts, the premises could serve as an excellent venue for both SMEDA and Tourism.  A “floor plan” is being developed for our review.

Meanwhile, I am studying the wisdom of moving the Cecilia Health Unit from its current location to the building at Paul Angelle Park which we had considered for a rural health clinic.  Since the esoteric renovation of that facility into a rural clinic was cost prohibitive, it appears that it can be structured to accommodate our health unit AND a wellness facility with aerobic exercise equipment.  This would blend well with the use of the walking track at the Park.  The Director of our Health Unit embraced this idea during a meeting on November 3, 2022.

I will keep you informed as we progress with these plans.”

Since those remarks, much progress has been made toward the development of floor plans to renovate the Breaux Bridge Health Unit so as to accommodate SMDA and our Department of Tourism.  Indeed, on Monday, May 8, 2023, the architect preparing the plans has advised that the final drawings should be completed within seven days.  Thus, bidding should ensue shortly afterwards.  It is anticipated that the contract for the renovation can be confected in mid to late June.

Meanwhile, on Friday, May 12, 2023, I met with our Health Unit Director to discuss the wisdom of the Cecilia Health Unit relocating to the vacant, former technology center at Paul Angelle Park.  There are several logistical issues which must be resolved before a final decision is made on this proposition.

 

WIC CLOSING REPORT

On March 14-16, our Health Units were the subject of a WIC Management Evaluation by the Louisiana Department of Health.  WIC is an acronym for Women and Infant Children, a special supplemental program for pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children under the age of five years.  WIC provides nutritious foods, nutrition information, breast feeding promotion and support and referrals to other health and social services. It is a vibrant program which our Health Units have undertaken.

The Management Evaluation found our facilities to be compliant with all requirements of the program.  In fact, the closing memorandum of the Department of Health noted:

“The staff at this clinic were welcoming and cooperative, and provided all information on site, without hesitation, All findings received sufficient corrective action and this ME is officially closed.”

I congratulate and recognize our health unit personnel for not only this positive evaluation, but also for the professional work they do on a daily basis.  Our staff includes Tiffanie Bulliard (the Director), Paula Navarre, and Kim Talley.

 

SECTION 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In a recent Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) evaluation, our Section Eight office received a 97% score.  Fifteen separate areas of operations were evaluated, and as reflected by the score, our personnel received exemplary marks in each category.  Point totals were assigned for each indicator, and our score was 140 points out of a possible 145. Both Jennifer Tyler (Director) and Sylvia Narcisse, our Section 8 employees are to congratulated on their performance.

 

MILLAGE RENEWAL FOR ROAD DISTRICT NO. 2

On April 29, 2023, the voters of District 2 voted in favor of the millage renewal for Road District Number 2.  89% of the voters approved the renewal of this important proposition.  The millage only applies to Road District No. 2 which was created by an Ordinance adopted in 1984.  The boundaries of the District are conterminous with Council District Number 2 as it was constituted in 1984 except that no part of the City of St. Martinville falls within the District, as those corporate boundaries existed in 1984.  Noteworthy is that the revenue generated by the millage may be expended ONLY for road maintenance within that ROAD district.  Specifically, the proposition specifies that the authorized uses of the millages are:

“… for purposes of constructing, improving, operating and maintaining roads, bridges and road drainage facilities in the District and acquiring the necessary equipment therefor.”

The millage generates approximately $1.5 million annually.  Of course, I extend my appreciation to the voters of Road District No. 2 for their trust and confidence in the Parish as evidenced by the overwhelming margin by which the renewal was approved.

One year earlier, on April 30, 2022, the voters of Sales Tax District No. 2 approved the renewal of the one cent sales tax for that district.  The revenue from that tax is dedicated to roads repair and construction in, essentially, the unincorporated areas of the Parish.  The proposition passed by a vote of 73% to 27%. 

I believe that each member of the Council should be elated over the success of these tax propositions. The large margin by which both renewals passed transmits a strong message that our use of the proceeds entrusted to the Parish is approved of by the citizens of the Parish.  As all of you know, in these tough and uncertain economic times, tax propositions are difficult to pass.  Of course, both taxes yield much needed revenue,

 

 

2022 AUDIT PREPARATIONS

All of our data for the 2022 Financial Audit has been reconciled and presented to Maraist & Maraist for preparation of the final report.  According to Sean Hundley, our Director of Finance, our various funds demonstrate expenditures consistent with our budget projections.  One exception, however, addresses expenditures for repairs at the Industrial Water Plant.  As you will recall, beginning in the Fall of 2022, we experienced, on two separate occasions, major failures in pumps which, because of their age, could not be repaired.  Because of severe supply shortages replacements could not be readily obtained.  Therefore, on both occasions, we had to purchase water from the City of St. Martinville for several weeks at a time.  Thus, our expenditures far exceeded our projected expenditures.  Of course, the age of our infrastructure at the Water Plant has been, and remains, a concern.  Indeed, that is one of the many reasons I began studying in 2019 the wisdom of a water consolidation of several local systems with our Industrial Plant serving as the anchor.  Furthermore, you will note a substantial portion of our ARPA money has been dedicated to water services. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we anticipate another positive audit report once all of the data is evaluated by our auditor.  Moreover, our fund balances continue to remain strong and, except as discussed previously relative to the Industrial Park, our budgetary projections for both revenue and expenditures were in line with the actual receipts and expenses.

I wish to personally thank Mr. Hundley who worked after hours and on weekends to timely organize our financial data for an expeditious and accurate review and audit by Maraist and Maraist.

 

ARNAUDVILLE PAVILION

At your May regular meeting, the Council granted substantial completion of the Arnaudville Pavilion.  Therefore, the administration has assumed custody of the facility and adopted steps to address the punch list items.  Additionally, we are pursuing landscaping activities and the placement of benches and trash containers at the facility.

On May 8, 2023, I conferred with Mayor Todd Mech of Arnaudville and discussed the use of the pavilion.  On behalf of Arnaudville, he has agreed to assume the regular, daily maintenance of the pavilion including, but not limited to, opening and closing the restrooms, cleaning the facility, emptying the trash containers, and mowing the grass.  Furthermore, any request for the rental of the pavilion will be regulated through the municipality.  Our arrangement is the epitome of two separate jurisdictions working together for the benefit of the community.

As an aside, Mayor Meche anticipates that the public will use the pavilion frequently, especially during the Spring and Fall months.  Furthermore, its proximity to the floating dock constructed through a joint endeavor between the Parish and the TECHE Project, will encourage public use.

I repeat my remarks from last month’s report about the pavilion:

“This facility is a much-needed addition to the northern part of our Parish and affords us the opportunity to offer a recreational outlet for the surrounding community.  The project was funded by a combination of RESTORE Act and local funds at a cost of $335,926.72 which includes engineering and construction costs.”

 

MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY

Parish Government Offices will be closed on Monday, May 29, 2023, in observance of the Memorial Day Holiday.  I wish to take this opportunity to recognize and acknowledge those men and women who have died in service to our Country.

 

TAX COLLECTIONS

The Parish’s tax collection reports for April 2023 are extremely positive.  For the sake of convenience, I offer the following summary from those reports:

Net Collections for Sales Tax District #1:

April 2023 Net Collections:                          $392,971.86
April 2022 Net Collections:                          $334,510.77
April 2021 Net Collections:                          $332,889.50
Average 2022 Monthly Collections:            $344,955.41
Average 2021 Monthly Collections:            $309,495.52
Average 2020 Monthly Collections:            $251,006.17

 

Average January-April Net Collections:

Sales Tax District #1:
January-April 2023 Average:                        $350,344.25
January-April 2022 Average:                        $324,332.00
January-April 2021 Average:                        $292,904.06

Sales Tax District #2:
April 2023 Net Collections:                          $186,934.17
April 2022 Net Collections:                          $131,959.60
April 2021 Net Collections:                          $109,573.82

Average 2022 Monthly Collections:            $140,560.01
Average 2021 Monthly Collections:            112,363.68
Average 2020 Monthly Collections:            $95,507.00

 

Average January-April Net Collections

Sales Tax District #2:
January-April 2023 Average:                        $156,888.83
January-April 2022 Average:                        $133,713.99
January-April 2021 Average:                        $98,680.43

The April collections in both Sales Tax District No. 1 and Sales Tax District No. 2 compensated for relatively low March collections.  In fact, the April net collections in both districts were substantially greater than the April collections for the last decade.  Of course, increased sales tax collections should be expected over the last few years as a product of remote sales tax collections which commenced in 2021, combined with the current inflationary climate.  Nonetheless, what is particularly encouraging at this juncture is the fact that in both Sales Tax District No. 1 and Sales Tax District No. 2, the average collections for the months of January through April this year are greater that the amounts collected in the first four months of 2022 and 2021. Particularly noteworthy is that this upward trend holds true as regards the January-April 2023 net collections when compared to the average net collections in all of the months of 2022 and 2021.  

The hotel/motel tax collections for April 2023 were $29,550.48 compared to April 2022 collections of $24,550.48 and 2021 April collections of $14,716.79. The average monthly collections for 2022 were $25,297.62 and were $26,404.71 in 2021. 

Furthermore, I note that the April 2023 collections demonstrate an increase over January, February, and March collections.  Additionally, as with the sales tax collections, April’s collections are the highest for that month in the last several years.

I again acknowledge that sales tax collections can be expected to greater than in years past because of inflationary factors coupled with remote sales.  Nonetheless, looking at the increase in our hotel/motel collections, one must necessarily surmise that there are obviously increased economic activities in our Parish.

Video Poker revenue for April 2023 was $223,153.72.  Last year, our collections in April were $214,941.61 and were $191,813.03 in April 2021.  Also, the average monthly collections in all of 2022 and 2021 were $181,810.26 and $171,985.65 respectively. The combined January-April 2023 collections average $210,832.15 monthly which again buttresses the proposition that there is more economic activity in our Parish.

The Off-Track Betting Revenues are extremely concerning.  Reports which I have recently received reflect revenue of $4,837, $6,269, and $8,586, respectively, for the months of January, February, and March of 2023.  This totals $19,692.  For those three months, collections in 2022 and 2021 were, respectively, $31,543 and $39, 918.  This is a 99.96% decrease from 2021, and a 37.51% reduction from last year at this point.  I will be conferring with other Parishes which entertain off track betting to discuss this matter.  At this juncture, it appears that the historical racing devices about which I have previously commented are indeed having a negative impact on this source of revenue.  The fortunate aspect is that our monthly revenue from this source is relatively insignificant. 

Despite the overall positive picture relative to our collections, I again observe that the economic landscape of our state and nation still remains extremely uncertain. Sean Hundley, Director of Finance, and I will continue to closely scrutinize our revenue sources and keep you abreast of all developments.  Similarly, our expenditures shall remain a focal point as we administer the Parish’s finances.