[00:00:02]
>> IT IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO 9:30.WE WILL
[1. Call to Order – Jerald Jones, Chairman ]
CALL THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY FOR, ACTUALLY, THIS IS OUR FEBRUARY MEETING, BUT WE'RE HOLDING IT ON MARCH 1.MS. SIMMONS WOULD YOU CALL THEM TO ENSURE WE HAVE A QUORUM.
>> YES, SIR. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
>> RICKY, FOBRA? MANUEL FARJADO? STEWART MOSS?
>> REPRESENTATIVE VINCENT ST BLANK PROXY FOR PAULA DAVIS?
>> SENATOR BARRY MULLIGAN PROXY FOR SENATOR MIKE REESE? KENNETH HUBBERT?
>> REPRESENTATIVE STEWART BISHOP?
>> JOHAN MOLLER? SECRETARY DON PEARSON?
>> DARRELL SAISON? MARSHALL SIMEON?
>> ZACH LAMONT PROXY FOR DR. SHAUN WILSON?
>> DR. WOODROW WILSON? TRAVIS HOLLY?
>> DR. BEVERLY THOMPSON? WE HAVE A QUORUM.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. BOARD MEMBERS,
[3. Approval of Minutes from January 20, 2023 meeting ]
YOU'VE RECEIVED I HOPE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 2023 MEETING.IF SO AND IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION FROM MR. STEWART MOSS, SECOND FROM MR. SIMEON.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
GOOD MORNING, MRS. DABNEY, HOW ARE YOU TODAY?
>> GOOD MORNING. WELL, AND YOURSELF.
LET'S WALK US THROUGH THE QUALITY JOBS PROGRAM, PLEASE.
[4. Quality Jobs Program – Michaela Adegbe ]
>> WE HAVE ONE NEW APPLICATION, 2019 0517, PRO KEEP ORLEANS PARISH.
>> WE WOULD HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ONE, QJ APPLICATION.
YOU HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. SLOAN TO APPROVE, SECOND FROM MR. MOSS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THERE ARE FOUR RENEWAL APPLICATIONS, 2017 0427, CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, LAFAYETTE PARISH, 2017 0390 CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS, INC. VERNON PARISH, 2018 0197, FIBER BOND CORPORATION, WEBSTER PARISH, 2017 0271.
UTLX MANUFACTURING, LLC RAPIDS PARISH.
>> I ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION FROM MR. NASSER TO APPROVE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> ONE LATE RENEWAL APPLICATION, 2017 0070 MAUSER, USA, LLC, ASCENSION PARISH CONTRACT EFFECTIVE DATE 2, 15 2017.
INITIAL CONTRACT EXPIRATION DATE 2, 14, 2022.
LATE RENEWAL REQUEST DATE 10, 28 2022.
>> DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM MAUSER? COME FORWARD, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE?
>> GOOD MORNING. I AM WILLIAM FISH, I'M FINANCE MANAGER FOR MAUSER PACKAGING.
>> DARRELL HUNTER, PLANT MANAGER FROM MAUSER PACKAGING.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS MORNING.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR THE LATE RENEWAL SO WE CAN HELP US DETERMINE WHAT IF ANYTHING, WE'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT.
>> SURE. WE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH A THIRD PARTY COMPANY TO HANDLE OUR FILINGS FOR THE QUALITY JOBS, APPLICATIONS, AND ALSO THE RENEWALS.
THERE WAS CONFUSION ON THE PART OF THE THIRD PARTY PARTNER IN TERMS OF THE DEADLINE.
THEY HAD CONFUSE THAT WITH THE DEADLINE FOR THE ITEP RENEWAL, WHICH WAS JANUARY OF 2023, THEY DIDN'T DISCOVER THIS ERROR UNTIL MIDWAY,
[00:05:01]
ABOUT AROUND JUNE OF 2022, AND INFORMED US OF THE LATE FILING AT THAT POINT.THEN DUE TO OTHER ISSUES WITH SOME TURNOVER IN OUR PAYROLL DEPARTMENT, IT TOOK US MORE TIME THAN WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO GATHER THE INFORMATION FOR THE RENEWAL APPLICATION AND THAT LED TO THE LATE FILING OF IT, WHICH WAS FINALLY SUBMITTED IN OCTOBER OF 2022.
GOING FORWARD, WE HAVE PLANS IN PLACE TO AVOID MISSING THESE DEADLINES.
WE'VE ACTUALLY HAVE A NEW PLANT CONTROLLER THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE GUYS AT MY FACILITY.
SHE'S WORKING CLOSELY WITH OUR THIRD PARTY PARTNER AS WELL AS WITH ESTABLISHING CONTACTS WITH THE STATE.
HER NAME IS DAPHNE JAMES, SHE'S PUTTING A PLAN IN PLACE SO THAT WE HAVE FIRM DATES ON THE CALENDAR THAT WE CAN PLAN AND WORKING TOWARDS AND GETTING ALL THE NECESSARY DATA SO THAT WE DON'T MISS THESE DEADLINES GOING FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I KNOW THAT SOME FOLKS WHO WATCH US ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY WE ARE AS PERSNICKETY IF YOU WILL ON THIS.
THE REASON IS, AND SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, THESE PROGRAMS VERY VALUABLE.
THEY'RE BOTH VALUABLE FOR THE COMPANIES, BUT ALSO THE COMPANY'S PRESENCE IN THE STATE IS VALUABLE FOR THE STATE.
THIS IS A GIVE AND TAKE SITUATION.
IN ORDER FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY DETERMINE COMPLIANCE ISSUES AND MAKE SURE THAT THE STATE IS GETTING THE INFORMATION THAT IT NEEDS IN ORDER TO JUDGE THE COMPANY'S COMPLIANCE, FILING REPORTS, FILING OF APPLICATIONS, RENEWALS, THE DEADLINES MEAN SOMETHING.
WE LIKE MANY OF OUR COMPANIES, THE STATE, WE DO NOT HAVE UNLIMITED RESOURCES, BELIEVE IT OR NOT.
IT TAKES TIME FOR US TO EVALUATE THINGS AS WELL.
SO THESE, THESE DEADLINES ARE IMPORTANT FOR ABUNDANT REASONS.
IT HAS ALSO BECOME THE PRACTICE, AND THIS I'M SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD'S EDIFICATION AS WELL, THE QJ PROGRAM, UNLIKE SOME OF THE OTHER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, DO NOT HAVE A BUILT IN PENALTY FOR LATE RENEWAL.
THE OPTIONS HERE, AS POINTED OUT IN THE AGENDA, AS YOU CAN APPROVE THE RENEWAL WITHOUT PENALTY, YOU CAN APPROVE WITH A PENALTY OR YOU CAN DENY THE RENEWAL ALTOGETHER.
AS I'VE GROWN FOND OF SAYING THE WORLD IS CERTAINLY YOUR OYSTER ON THIS SITUATION.
IT HAS BEEN WHAT WE'VE HAD SIMILAR SITUATIONS UNDER THE QJ PROGRAM IN THE PAST AND OUR GENERAL GUIDELINE HAS BEEN FOR APPROVING THE RENEWAL WITH A ONE YEAR PENALTY.
YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY HELD TO THAT, BUT THAT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE FOR THE BOARD IN PAST TIMES.
WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE BOARD.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PENALIZE FOR ONE YEAR.
>> OKAY. IS YOUR MOTION THEN TO APPROVE THE RENEWAL BUT WITH A ONE YEAR PENALTY?
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. NASSER, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. SLOAN.
DOES ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE FOLKS FROM MASUER OR OTHERWISE OR ANY COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? DO YOU HAVE ANY ANYTHING FURTHER TO SAY?
>> SO CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS WITH THE ONE YEAR PENALTY?
>> IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GET THE RENEWAL.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S ANOTHER FIVE YEARS ON THE RENEWAL, BUT YOU'LL LOSE ONE YEAR OF THAT PROGRAM.
>> OKAY. IS THAT ONE YEAR AT THE END OR ONE YEAR AT THE BEGINNING?
>> I'M GOING TO LET YOU WORK THAT OUT WITH THE STAFF.
I THINK WHAT WE'VE DONE IS AT THE END [OVERLAPPING].
>> CORRECT, ONE YEAR AT THE END.
>> THAT WILL ONLY GET IT FOR FOUR YEARS INSTEAD OF FIVE?
>> THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THE MOTION PASSES, IT HASN'T PASSED YET.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN LOUISIANA.
>> ONE, CHANGE OF PROJECT PHYSICAL LOCATION, 2018 0061, ALIGN TECHNOLOGIES CORP, PREVIOUS ADDRESS, 4176 CANAL STREET, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA.
PREVIOUS PARISH, ORLEANS, NEW ADDRESS, 4637 CHAPO TULA STREET IN NEW ORLEANS,
[00:10:03]
LOUISIANA, ORLEANS PARISH.>> I TURN THE MOTION TO APPROVE.
EMOTION OF MR. SLOAN SELECTED FROM MAYOR TUBES, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THIS CONCLUDES QUALITY JOBS.
MS. LAMBERT WOULD YOU STEP FORWARD? [LAUGHTER]
>> MR. [LAUGHTER] YOU'RE STEPPING IN FOR MS. LAMBERT I'LL TAKE IT.
[5. Restoration Tax Abatement Program – Becky Lambert ]
WALK US THROUGH THE RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM.>> WE HAVE ONE NEW APPLICATION FOR THE RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM, 2019- 0012 JAMES AND TIFFANY BELLOT IN IBERIA PARISH.
THAT CONCLUDES THE NEW APPLICATIONS.
>> THIS IS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL ENTITY.
>> ONCE WE APPROVE IT, IT WILL BE IN PLACE.
>> ANY MOTION FROM THE BOARD? WE HAVE MOTION FROM MR. MOSS TO APPROVE.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? MR. SIMEON, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? THERE BEING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
>> THERE IS ONE RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT RENEWAL APPLICATION 2016, 1642214 SOUTH 14TH STREET, LLC IN EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH. THAT CONCLUDES THE RENEWAL.
>> HAVE A MOTION MS. COLA TO APPROVE A SECOND? SECOND. MAYOR TUBES ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
[6. Enterprise Zone Program – Joyce Metoyer ]
>> THERE ARE 11 NEW APPLICATIONS.
2020-0031, BEST STOP, CAJUN FOOD, LLC, LAFAYETTE PARISH.
2020-0137 EDREW CLIMATE, DDS, LLC, LEFT FOOLISH PARISH.
2016-0670 FTC HOTELS, LLC DOING BUSINESS AS SPRINGHILL SUITES, ST. TAMMANY PARISH.
2020-0110 LOUISIANA FISH FRY PRODUCTS LIMITED, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.
2020-0046, LOUISIANA SUGARCANE CO-OPERATIVE INCORPORATED, ST. MARTIN PARISH, 2015-1387.
MS. WHY HOSPITALITY, LLC, JEFFERSON PARISH.
2020-0109 METAL PLATE GALVANIZING LP, JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH.
2020-0066 OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION, JEFFERSON PARISH.
202- 0085 OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION, JEFFERSON PARISH.
2020-0165 SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, KAPPA SHOE PARISH.
IN 2020-0355 TANGY POND SENIOR CARE, LOC, TANGIBLE WHOLE PARISH.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE APPLICATIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. MOSS TO APPROVE THESE GLOBAL.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FROM MAYOR AND.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? MOTION TO APPROVE THESE IN GLOBAL, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> WE HAVE EIGHT TERMINATIONS.
2016-1191, OLDER HOTEL PARTNERS, LOC, ORLEANS PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS 415 OR 16 THROUGH 414 OF 2020.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS 414 OF 2020.
THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.
NO ADDITIONAL JOBS ARE ANTICIPATED.
2017-0002, C AND C MARINA REPAIR, LLC, [FOREIGN] PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS JULY 2, 2017 TO JULY 1, 2022.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS 12 OF 2020.
THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.
NO ADDITIONAL JOBS ARE ANTICIPATING.
2016- 0810 INTERNATIONAL PAPER, WASHINGTON PARISH, THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS JUNE 15 OF 2018 THROUGH JUNE 14 OF 2023.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS DECEMBER 14, 2020.
THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.
NO ADDITIONAL JOBS OR ANTICIPATED.
2018-0321, OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION, JEFFERSON PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS AUGUST 30 OF 2018 THROUGH AUGUST 29 OF 2023.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS FEBRUARY 28, 2021.
[00:15:02]
THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.NO ADDITIONAL JOBS OR ANTICIPATED.
2018-0330, OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION, JEFFERSON PARISH, THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS AUGUST 30, 2018 THROUGH AUGUST 29 OF 2023.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS 2.28.21.
THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, NO ADDITIONAL JOBS OR ANTICIPATED.
2015-0945, SHELL CHEMICAL LP, ASCENSION PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS SEPTEMBER 1, 2016, THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2019.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS 228 OF 2019.
THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, NO ADDITIONAL JOBS OR ANTICIPATED.
2018- 0122, W.R. GRACE AND COMPANY, ST. CHARLES PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS APRIL 13 OF 2018 THROUGH APRIL 12 OF 2023.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS APRIL 12 OF 2021.
THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.
NO ADDITIONAL JOBS ARE ANTICIPATED.
IN 2018-0104, WESTPORT LAND SURFACES, LOC ORLEANS PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS MARCH 26 OF 2018 THROUGH MARCH 25TH OF 2023.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS 12.31 OF 2021.
THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.
NO ADDITIONAL JOBS ARE ANTICIPATED.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THESE ENTERPRISE AND TERMINATIONS? I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. SIMEON TO APPROVE THE ENTIRE GROUP.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
[7. Industrial Tax Exemption – Kristin Cheng/Hud Usie ]
>> WE MOVE TO THE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM UNDER THE 2018 RULES.
LET ME KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED.
>> WE HAVE 13 POST-EO 2018 ROLES APPLICATIONS.
2018-0503, ALLIANCE COMPRESSORS, NACHADISH PARISH.
2021-0507, ALLIANCE COMPRESSORS, LLC NACHADISH PARISH.
2020-0094A, BURSON CHEMICALS LLC, LIVINGSTON PARISH.2022-0504, CLEAN HYDROGEN WORKS, LA1, LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS ASCENSION CLEAN ENERGY, ASCENSION PARISH.
2022-0397, CRYING EAGLE BREWING COMPANY, LLC, CALCASIEU PARISH.
2023-0005, FREE POINT ECOSYSTEMS, BATON ROUGE RECYCLING, LLC, ASCENSION PARISH.
2021-0171 INDOROMA VENTURES OLEFINS, LLC, CALCASIEU PARISH.
2020-0380, KENNEDY RICE DRYERS, LLC, MOREHOUSE PARISH.
2022-0235, LACC LOC, US CALCASIEU PARISH.
2021-0307, LOUISIANA PLASTIC INDUSTRY'S, [NOISE] PARISH.
2022-0117, LOUISIANA SUGARCANE CO-OPERATIVE, INC, ST. MARTIN PARISH.
2022-0115, MAGNOLIA POWER, LLC, [NOISE] PARISH.
2019-0290A, WESTLAKE VINYLS COMPANY, LP, ASCENSION PARISH.
>> VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? A MOTION, MR. ST. BLONG TO APPROVE.
BEFORE WE ASK FOR OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, EVERY ONE OF THESE INVESTMENTS ARE HUGE FOR THE COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY SIT.
BUT THERE WAS A TIME NOT TOO LONG AGO IF WE SAW A BILLION-DOLLAR INVESTMENT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EYE-POPPING AND NOW WHEN WE SEE 7.5 BILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT I JUST GOT TO SAY, IT'S PARTICULARLY EYE-POPPING.
BUT IN MY WORLD, I'M EXCITED TO SEE A MILLION-DOLLAR INVESTMENTS.
WE THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THESE COMPANIES MAKING THESE INVESTMENTS.
BUT THE RANGE HERE IS FROM A VERY SMALL COMPANIES WITH RELATIVELY SMALL INVESTMENTS.
BUT THAT'S HUGE FOR THOSE INDUSTRIES AND FOR THOSE COMPANIES.
WE THANK YOU FOR THE COMPETENCE YOU'RE SHOWING IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
BUT WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE APPLICATIONS DO HAVE MOTION FROM MR. NASSER.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
[00:20:01]
>> YOU HAVE 17 PRE EO TIMELY RENEWALS, 2014 1304 BUNGIE NORTH AMERICA, INC. ST. CHARLES PARISH, 2013 0429B CAMERON LNG, LLC CAMERON BEARISH, 2016 1536 DIVERSIFIED FOODS AND SEASONINGS LLC, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, 2015 0934 DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LOUISIANA, LLC, CADDO PARISH 2015 0934A DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LOUISIANA LLC, CADDO PARISH.
2015 0934B DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LOUISIANA LLC, CADDO PARISH, AND 2015, 0934C DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LOUISIANA LLC, CADDO PARISH.
2015 1505 GUAN ENTERPRISES, LLC DBAS SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US ST. CHARLES PARISH.
2012 1215A HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL AND ASCENSION PARISH.
2012 1215 B HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL ASCENSION PARISH.
2015 1722 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.
2016 1523 KENNEDY RICE MILL, LLC MOREHOUSE PARISH.
2015 0156A LOUISIANA INTEGRATED POLYETHYLENE JV, LLC, CALCASIEU PARISH 2016 1175A NEW PARK DRILLING FLUIDS LLC, THE FISH PARISH 2015, 1570 SASOL CHEMICALS USA, LLC, CALCASIEU PARISH, 2015 0945 SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LP ASCENSION PARISH.
2014,1070B SHIN TECH LOUISIANA, LLC EBERVILE PARISH?
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THESE PRE EXECUTIVE ORDER RENEWALS.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR TUBES TO APPROVE? WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND FROM MS. COLA.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? YES. MR. SIMEON? MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
>> I ABSTAIN FOR SASOL CHEMICALS.
>> MR. SIMEON WILL BE RECUSING HIMSELF FROM THE SASOL CHEMICALS.
AND I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE OF THE CHAIR NEEDS TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE FOUR CONTRACTS FOR DR. REDDY'S LABORATORY, LOUISIANA, THAT'S 2015, 0934AB AND C. I'LL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM THE BOAT.
I WILL BE STILL FACILITATING THE BOAT FOR PURPOSES OF PROCEDURE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? HAVE A MOTION.
SECOND, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ARE THERE ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> WE HAVE THREE PRE EO A LATE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS, 2015 1744, CORNERSTONE CHEMICAL COMPANY, JEFFERSON PARISH, INITIAL CONTRACT EXPIRATION DATE 12, 31 OF '21, LATE RENEWAL REQUEST DATE 12, 21 OF '22.
2015 1745 CORNERSTONE CHEMICAL COMPANY IN JEFFERSON PARISH, INITIAL CONTRACT EXPIRATION 12, 31 OF '21 AND LATE RENEWAL REQUEST DATE OF 12, 21, '22 AND 2014, 1329 GEO HEAT EXCHANGERS, LLC, IBERVILLE PARISH, INITIAL CONTRACT EXPIRATION 12, 31, '21, LATE RENEWAL REQUESTED 10, 17 OF '22.
>> DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM A CORNERSTONE CHEMICAL? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> YES. MY NAME IS JOLENA BROUSSARD, AND I AM THE MANAGER OF STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS FOR CORNERSTONE CHEMICAL COMPANY.
I THINK YOU'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION EARLIER.
LOOK, TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED FOR THE LATE RENEWAL.
>> INITIALLY WE HAD A PRIOR STAFF MEMBER AT CORNERSTONE WHO WAS HISTORICALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SINGLE-HANDEDLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THINGS UNRELATED TO THE I-TAP MATTER, AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT SHE UNFORTUNATELY HAD THE CONTRACTS MARKED FOR RENEWAL IN 2022 INSTEAD OF 2021, AND SHE WAS LOOKING AT IT BASED ON THEIR CONTRACT EXECUTION DATE INSTEAD OF THE CONTRACT EFFECTIVE DATE.
BUT SINCE THE DEPARTURE OF THAT PRIOR STAFF MEMBER, CORNERSTONE HAS DEFINITELY PUT IN THE PROPER PROCESSES, PROCEDURES, PROTOCOLS, AND GOTTEN MORE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE I-TAP PROCESS FROM THE CHIEF OFFICER LEVEL, HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND FINANCE.
ALSO WORKING WITH OUR CONSULTANT ADVANTUS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL THE RULES, THE REGULATIONS THE DEADLINES, BECAUSE WE DO KNOW THAT THOSE ARE IMPORTANT.
WE DO HAVE ALL OF THOSE IN PLACE.
WE DO NOW KNOW THE CORRECT WAY AND MAKE SURE THAT MOVING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE
[00:25:03]
CORNERSTONE WILL NOT MISS THOSE DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTING THOSE APPLICATIONS AND THOSE RENEWALS.>> VERY GOOD THANK YOU FOR THAT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR CORNERSTONE CHEMICAL AGAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS A PRE EXECUTIVE ORDER CONTRACT, THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS WHICH DICTATE THE PENALTY.
HISTORICALLY, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN BECAUSE THEY WERE WITHIN A YEAR, BUT THERE WOULD STILL BE A ONE YEAR PENALTY HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY OUR PRACTICE TO RENEW A GRANT THAT RENEWAL, BUT WITH A ONE YEAR PENALTY.
DO I HAVE A MOTION MOTION FROM MR. SIMEON TO GRANT THE RENEWAL WITH A ONE YEAR PENALTY.
>> SECOND FROM MR. MOSS? ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
>> YES, INDEED. NEXT, I GUESS WE NEED SOMEONE TO COME UP FOR GEO HEAT EXCHANGE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SORRY, THE BALL IS IN MY COAT NOT YOURS, MS. JANE, FORGIVE ME.
THANK YOU, SIR. HE'S AHEAD OF BOTH OF US.
>> YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> KEVIN CAUSEY THE CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER.
>> GREAT. YOU'VE HEARD THAT THE QUESTION.
JUST TELL US WHAT HAPPENED, THE REASON FOR THE LATE RENEWAL.
>> ABSOLUTELY AROUND AUGUST OF 2021, UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER.
I HAVE A SMALL HR TEAM, AND AT THAT TIME I THINK THEY WORKED AS WELL AS THEY COULD TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING THAT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND OFFERS WERE TAKING CARE OF.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS RENEWAL WAS A SIMPLE OVERSIGHT BY THE TEAM.
WE ALSO WORKED WITH THE COMPANY DDA IN SOME OTHER EFFORTS FOR THE COMPANY AND SOME OF THE EMAILS WERE CONFUSED WITH IT AND IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION.
WHEN I RETURNED BACK TO THE OFFICE, WHICH I WAS OUT FOR ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS, ONCE I RETURN BACK, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE GOT RIGHT ON TO MAKE SURE WE HAD IT READY TO FILE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS THE SITUATION THAT HAPPENED, IT WAS UNFORTUNATE, BUT AGAIN, IT WAS A SIMPLE OVERSIGHT.
>> I HOPE YOU'RE DOING BETTER.
>> GOOD CONGRATULATIONS FOR MAKING WITHIN THAT STUFF.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, AS YOU'VE HEARD THIS SITUATION IS A SERIES ONE FROM THE [OVERLAPPING] PERSPECTIVE.
>> AGAIN, THIS WOULD FALL IN LINE FOR ACCORDING TO PAST PRACTICE FOR BEING ELIGIBLE FOR GRANTING THE RENEWAL, BUT WITH A ONE YEAR PENALTY.
DO I HAVE A MOTION MOTION FROM MR. SIMEON FOR RENEWAL WITH A ONE YEAR PENALTY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM MR. ELIAT.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, SIR. WE WISH YOU BEST.
>> WE HAVE TWO POST EO 2017 RULES.
RENEWABLES 2016 1647 BERRY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC IN ST. CHARLES PARISH, AND 2016 1576A LOUISIANA SUGAR REFINING LLC IN ST. JAMES PARISH.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THE LOUISIANA SUGAR REFINERY, I SIT ON THE PARENT BOARD.
CAROLINA BY RECUSING HIMSELF MEANS HE WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DEBATE OR THE VOTE.
JUST AGAIN FOR THE BOARD'S EDIFICATION AND PERHAPS FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL, YOU'LL NOTICE ON YOUR AGENDA THERE'S AN ANNUAL COMPLIANCE SUMMARY AND THEREFORE AT LEAST FOR ONE OF THESE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES BUT THOSE NON-COMPLIANCES HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY THIS BOARD IN THE YEARS THEY CAME UP.
THEREFORE YOUR INFORMATION, WE'RE NOT HAVING TO READDRESS THOSE ISSUES.
WITH THAT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THESE TWO RENEWALS, MOTION FROM MR. ST. BLONG TO APPROVE, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM MR. NASSER.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[00:30:02]
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> WE HAVE ONE CHANGE IN NAME ONLY CONTRACT AMENDMENT, MCC METHACRYLATES AMERICA ZINC 2020-0516, NEW NAME IS MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL AMERICA INC IN ASCENSION PARISH.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS CHANGE OF NAME, MR. SIMEON, SECOND FROM MAYOR TUPES, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? THERE BEING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> WE HAVE ONE CHANGE IN LOCATION CONTRACT AMENDMENT, RIGHT AND WEST LLC 2015-1505PT.
PREVIOUS LOCATION, WHICH WAS A MISTAKE BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER IN HOUSTON.
THE PREVIOUS LOCATION ON THE CONTRACT WAS 8931 PADFIELD STREET, HOUSTON, LA 77055 ST. CHARLES PARISH AND IT'S BEING CORRECTED TO 15536 RIVER ROAD NORCO, LOUISIANA 70079 ST. CHARLES PARISH.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THIS CHANGE, PRESS MOTION FROM MR. NASSER, SECOND FROM MR. MOSS, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? THERE BEING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> [NOISE] WE HAVE FIVE TRANSFER TAX EXEMPTION CONTRACT AMENDMENTS, ORION INSTRUMENTS IS REQUESTING DEFERRAL TO THE NEXT MEETING FOR 2013-0525, 2014-0269, 2015-0639, AND 2016-0763.
>> NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEFER THESE ORION CONTRACTS A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM MR. SLOAN, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES, THOSE ITEMS ARE DEFERRED TO THE NEXT MEETING.
>> INSTRUMENT & VALVE SERVICES COMPANY CONTRACT 2018-0275 IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO JOHN H CARTER CO. INC. IN CADDO, PARISH.
>> ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS TRANSFER OF CONTRACT FROM MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM MR. SLOAN, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? THERE BEING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> WE HAVE 17 CONTRACT CANCELLATIONS.
I DO HAVE ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE WITHDRAWN BECAUSE IT WAS INCLUDED INCORRECTLY, EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, DBA SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US IS REQUESTING WITHDRAWAL OF 2015-0201.
>> DO WE NEED A MOTION TO REMOVE THAT, IT WAS IN THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> RIGHT, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO CANCEL BUT WE DON'T WANT IT CANCELED.
>> LET'S JUST FOR CLARITY MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF THE 2015-0201 FROM THE EQUILON REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF CONTRACTS, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. NASSER, SECOND FROM MS. COLA, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? THERE BEING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> ASRC ENERGY SERVICES OMEGA LLC 2012-0941, COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION, IBERIA PARISH.
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS INC, 2019-0376 COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION, IBERVILLE PARISH CORNERSTONE CHEMICAL COMPANY, 2018-0171 COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION.
JEFFERSON PARISH, EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC DBA SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US, 2011-0897, 2014-0741, 2014-0742, 2016-1295, 2016-1296, 2016-1297, 2016-1368, 2016-1369, AND 2016-1370 COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION, ST. JAMES PARISH, SHELL CHEMICAL LP, 2018-0378, COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION ASCENSION PARISH, AND STEP BROTHERS INC DBA STEP CORPORATION 2019-0057, 2019-0057A, AND 2019-0057B, COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.
[00:35:03]
>> I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE CANCELLATIONS, MS. COLA, SECOND FROM MR. SLOAN, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> WE HAVE 10 SPECIAL REQUESTS.
THE FIRST ONE IS FROM EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC DBA SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US CONTRACTS 2015-0201, 2015-0201A, 2016-1827, AND 2016-1827A.
EQUILON ENTERPRISES SUBMITTED A LETTER ON 11-30-2022 REQUESTING CONTINUATION OF THE BELOW FOUR ACTIVE CONTRACTS AT THE CONVENT SITE WHILE THEY CONTINUE THEIR EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FACILITY.
>> DO WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE FROM SHELL?
>> GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, FRED PALMER, CORPORATE AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS REGIONAL MANAGER FOR SHELL FOR THE SOUTHEAST US BASED HERE IN BATON ROUGE AND I HAVE A COLLEAGUE HERE, MR. PHILLIPS.
>> GOOD MORNING, WADE PHILLIPS, I'M TAX COUNCIL.
>> GREAT. TELL US WHAT WE'VE GOT GOING ON HERE SO WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND YOUR REQUEST.
>> DUE TO THE NON-OPERATIONAL STATUS OF THE CONVENT SITE, WE WERE BEFORE YOU LAST YEAR WHERE WE ASKED FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE I-TYPE CONTRACTS, THEY'RE A TOTAL OF 14.
>> MIC A LITTLE BIT CLOSER PLEASE.
>> A TOTAL OF 14 CONTRACTS WHICH YOU APPROVED FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION, WE'RE NOW COMING BACK AND OF THOSE 14 ASKING FOR THE RENEWAL OF THESE FOUR RELATED TO TWO PROJECTS AT THE SITE AS PART OF THE CONTINUED REPURPOSING OF THE SITE AND OUR INVESTMENT THAT WE'LL BE MAKING AT THE CONVENT SITE.
THEN THE ITEMS YOU JUST CANCELED, THE 10 CONTRACTS RELATED TO THE CONVENT SITE, THOSE WERE PART OF THE 14 AND WE INITIATED CANCELING THOSE BUT WANTING TO EXTEND THESE FOUR CONTRACTS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. NASSER TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL REQUEST, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. MOSS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO WORK ON THAT SIDE.
>> THE NEXT SPECIAL REQUEST IS FROM THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY CONTRACTS 2017-0466, 2017-0467, 2018-0297, 2018-0298, 2019-0391, AND 2019-0392.
THERE'S A MISSING NUMBER ON THE AGENDA, JUST TO POINT OUT, IT'S 2019-0391.
>> WE HAVE FOLKS HERE REPRESENTING FOLGERS? PLEASE COME TO THE TABLE.
>> GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS JIMMY LEONARD, I LIVE HERE IN BATON ROUGE, I'M WITH ADVANCES CONSULTING [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M ASKING YOU PULL THE MIC JUST A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOU?
>> AGAIN MY NAME IS JIMMY LEONARD, I LIVE HERE IN BATON ROUGE, I'M WITH ADVANCES CONSULTING AND I SIT HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN ASSISTING FOLGERS WITH OUR I-TYPE APPLICATIONS.
WITH ME IS CHRIS DEDORO WITH FOLGERS COMPANY AND HE'LL HAVE SOME WORDS TO SAY HERE IN A SECOND.
BEFORE I TURN THE MIC OVER, I JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD.
WE'RE BACK HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY BECAUSE OF ONE SIMPLE REASON, THE NEW ORLEANS CITY COUNCIL, NEW ORLEANS SCHOOL BOARD, AND THE NEW ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN I-TYPE RULES WHICH ARE NOT ALIGNED AND FAR EXCEED THE ELIGIBILITY EXPECTATIONS AND RULES SET OUT BY THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
AS YOU MAY RECALL, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME AND ENERGY WENT INTO CREATING THE BC&I RULES ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER.
WE HELD MULTIPLE MEETINGS, MANY THAT WENT ON FOR HOURS ON IN, AND THIS BOARD HAS DONE A YEOMAN'S JOB TO GET THE I-TYPE RULES IN A PLACE THAT WE CAN USE TODAY FOR THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF PURSUING I-TYPE EXEMPTIONS.
SOON AFTER THESE BC&I RULES WERE IN PLACE, THERE WERE TWO COMMUNITIES THAT TOOK ADDITIONAL LIBERTIES TO PASS LOCAL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, EFFECTIVELY PUTTING LOCAL LAWS AND LOCAL RULES INTO PLACE THAT FAR EXCEEDED THE BC&IS RULES.
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH AND NEW ORLEANS PARISH WERE THE TAXING AUTHORITIES THAT DID SUCH.
[00:40:05]
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH AFTER THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY PAST IT'S OWN RESOLUTION INFORMING THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE SET OF RULES AND THERE'S ONLY ONE AUTHORITY, AND THAT IS THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY'S RULES AND THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY'S AUTHORITY TO CREATE RULES, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH WENT BACK, MODIFIED THEIR RESOLUTIONS SO THAT THEY COULD BE IN LINE WITH THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY RESOLUTIONS.>> NOLA HAS SIMPLY DECIDED TO IGNORE YOUR WISHES AND DO THEIR OWN THING.
WE SIT HERE TODAY, EVERY LOCAL TAXING JURISDICTIONS IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA FOLLOWS THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY RULES, EXCEPT ORLEANS.
GIVEN MY EXPERIENCE SUPPORTING COMPANIES TO THEIR ITAP APPLICATION APPROVAL PROCESSES HAS BEEN MY EXPECTATION THAT THERE MAY BE MANY LOCAL AUTHORITIES WHO WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CREATE ADDITIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS TO GOVERN ITAP.
BUT THEY HAVE NOT. DENYING FOLGERS APPEAL, THUS ALLOWING FOLGERS TO LOSE THEIR ITAP BECAUSE OF NOLAN'S ELICIT RULES WILL TELL EVERY SCHOOL BOARD, EVERY PARISH COUNCIL, EVERY POLICE JURY, EVERY CITY COUNCIL, AND EVERY SHERIFF AND THE STATE THAT THEY TOO, CAN IGNORE AND DEFY THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.
MY FEAR IS THAT ALL THE HARD WORK AND TIME THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO DATE TO IMPLEMENT THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER WILL HAVE BEEN FOR NAUGHT AND WE WILL INVITE ADDITIONAL UNCERTAINTY IN THIS PROGRAM AND ITS PROCESSES.
THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION ONLY PROVIDES ITAP AUTHORITY TO THE TWO BODIES, BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND THE GOVERNOR.
BOTH OF WHICH MUST MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS.
AS THE CONSTITUTION STATES WHICH ARE DEEMED IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE.
TO MAKE THIS EXPLICITLY CLEAR, THE BC AND I APPEAL RESOLUTION MADE THIS EXPLICITLY CLEAR YET NOLAN STILL BELIEVES IT CAN HAVE ITS OWN SETS OF RULES.
BOTTOM LINE, IF NOLAN WANTS TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYBODY ELSE THEN NOLAN NEEDS TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULES AS EVERYBODY ELSE.
MEANING UNTIL NOLAN GETS IN LINE WOULD BE CNI RULES AND THE REST OF THIS STATE, THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY IN THE GOVERNOR'S SHOULD DEEM ANY AND ALL NOLA, ITAP DENIALS AS INVALID.
>> GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
MY NAME IS CHRIS DEDORO, I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF COFFEE OPERATIONS AT THE JAM SMOKER COMPANY, THE PARENT COMPANY FOR THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY.
I OVERSEE OUR COFFEE'S OPERATIONS WHICH ARE CONSOLIDATED TO OUR THREE LOCATIONS IN NEW ORLEANS.
I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN NEW ORLEANS.
I STARTED MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER 35 YEARS AGO AT THE FOLGERS OLD UNTIL HE WROTE FACILITY.
ACROSS THESE 35 YEARS, I'VE BEEN DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY CONNECTED TO FOLGERS OPERATIONS BOTH IN NEW ORLEANS AND NET LOCATIONS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.
THROUGH MY ROLE, I HAD A CHANCE TO RETURN TO THE AREA TO OFFER SUPPORT FOLLOWING HURRICANE KATRINA, AND I ENTHUSIASTICALLY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO RELOCATE BACK HOME.
FOLLOWING THE TRAGEDY, OUR COMPANY WAS PROACTIVE IN SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY AND OUR EMPLOYEES, OFFERING MANY OPPORTUNITIES ON TEMPORARY HOUSING, EXTENDED BENEFITS TO THOSE WHO ARE DISPLACED.
WE ARE PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST BUSINESS TO OPEN UP AFTER THAT EVENT.
WITHIN THREE WEEKS WE WERE OPERATING IN OUR FACILITY AT THE GOLGI UNTIL A FACILITY.
I'M HERE TODAY TO PERSON WHO SOLICIT YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE WITH THE CHALLENGES WE'VE HAD AROUND OUR EYE TIP APPLICATION TO SHARE A BIT MORE ABOUT WHO WE ARE.
THE STORY OF FOLGERS BRAND IN NEW ORLEANS GOES BACK TO 1963, WHEN WE FIRST BEGAN ROASTING OUR COFFEE IN NEW ORLEANS.
SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE CONTINUED TO INVEST IN GROWING THE BUSINESS, GROWING OUR PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT IN THE AREA, AND GROWING OUR ROLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
IN 2010, WE CONSOLIDATED OUR ENTIRE COFFEE OPERATION OF MANUFACTURING TO NEW ORLEANS, FOLLOWING AN ACTIVE RECRUITMENT BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, INCLUDING OFFERING INCENTIVE PROGRAMS WE HAVE IN PLACE TODAY, REINFORCING AND EXTENDING THE LONG-STANDING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR BRAND, OUR COMPANY IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
SINCE WE'VE CONSOLIDATED OUR OPERATIONS, WE'VE INVESTED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO UPGRADE AND MODERNIZE OUR FACILITY.
ADDITIONALLY, OUR COMMITMENT TO NEW ORLEANS AND INVESTMENTS IN OUR FACILITIES HAVE CREATED HUNDREDS OF JOBS, HELP DIVERSIFY THE LOCAL ECONOMY AND GENERATED REVENUE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
TODAY, WE HAVE NEARLY 700 EMPLOYEES THAT ARE THREE NEW ORLEANS FACILITIES WITH A TOTAL PAYROLL MORE THAN $62 MILLION DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 2022.
TO PUT THAT IN CONTEXT, OUR PAYROLL HAS INCREASED TO 140%.
SINCE WE CONSOLIDATED OUR COFFEE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS TO THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
WE CONTINUE TO PRIORITIZE OUR EMPLOYEES AND OFFER THEM A WORK ENVIRONMENT THAT SUPPORTS THEIR NEEDS.
IN FACT, OUR EFFORTS HAD MADE US ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR EMPLOYERS IN THE AREA.
[00:45:02]
THIS COMES TO LIFE IN MANY WAYS, INCLUDING OFFERING HIGHER WAGES AND BENEFITS AS COMPARED TO OTHER EMPLOYEES OF OUR SCALE IN THE CITY.OUR HOURLY RATE STARTS AT $22 AN HOUR AND IT GOES UP TO $40 PER HOUR WITH EXTENSIVE BENEFITS INCLUDING MEDICAL, DENTAL, VISION, 41K WITH EMPLOYER MATCH BEREAVEMENT PAY.
WE'VE CONTINUED TO ENHANCE OUR BENEFITS OVER THE YEARS, INCLUDING ENHANCING PARENTAL LEAVE AND PAID TIME OFF.
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE ACCELERATED OUR INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT GENDER AND DIVERSITY INCLUSION ACROSS OUR ORGANIZATION.
WE ARE PROUD TO BE JOINED TODAY BY A FEW OF OUR EMPLOYEES HERE IN NEW ORLEANS WHO REPRESENTS A TREMENDOUS WORKFORCE WE HAVE.
A WORKFORCE THAT IS MOTIVATED BY THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A CAREER AND NOT JUST THE JOB.
THE WORKFORCE THAT INCLUDES MANY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN WITH US FOR DECADES AND MANY WHOSE FAMILIES HAD BEEN WITH THE COMPANY FOR GENERATIONS THROUGH THOSE EMPLOYEES WITH US TODAY AND FOR ALL THOSE WHO SUPPORT OUR BUSINESS IN THIS COMMUNITY, I PERSONALLY THANK YOU.
OUR FOCUS ON SECURING THE BEST TALENT IS IN SERVICE OF SUPPORTING OUR CONSUMERS WHO TRUST US AS A LEADER IN THE AT-HOME COFFEE CATEGORY.
TO PUT THIS IN GREATER CONTEXT, MORE AMERICANS START THEIR MORNING AT HOME WITH A CUP OF COFFEE FROM ONE OF OUR BRANDS THAN ANY OTHER.
WITH A HOME COFFEE CONSUMPTION AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL IN SOME TIME, CONSUMERS ARE RELYING ON TRUSTED COFFEE BRANDS MORE THAN EVER.
OUR DEDICATED NEW ORLEANS EMPLOYEES DELIVER ON THAT NEAT EVERY SINGLE DAY.
IN ADDITION TO PRODUCING FOLGERS, THE TEAM DELIVERS GROWING DUNCAN, AT-HOME AND CAFE BOOTHS.
STELLA BRANDS COMBINE, ONE OF THE LARGEST COFFEE COMPANIES IN THE WORLD, IS MANUFACTURED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
WHILE WE ARE PROUD OF HOW WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT OUR EMPLOYEES AND TRUST WE HAVE EARNED AMONG OUR CONSUMERS, WE'RE EVEN PROUDER OF THE WORK WE DO HERE IN THE COMMUNITY.
IN ADDITION TO BEING A LEADING AND EMPLOYER IN ONE OF THE TOP LOCAL PROPERTY TAX PAYERS OUR INCREDIBLY PASSIONATE AND DEDICATED EMPLOYEES HAVE PLAYED A MEANINGFUL ROLE IN SUPPORTING THIS AREA.
FOLLOWING KATRINA, SMOKER NEW ORLEANS TEAM WAS A LEADING PARTICIPANT ANNUALLY IN THE NOVEMBER TO REMEMBER WORK COORDINATED BY THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.
THIS PROGRAM WAS FOCUSED ON REBUILDING HOMES IMPACTED.
OUR TEAM AID IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN 100 HOMES OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS.
IN ADDITION, ON THE DAY WE ANNOUNCED OUR CONSOLIDATION, THE COMPANY CONTRIBUTED A MILLION DOLLARS TO UNITED WAY OF GREATER NEW ORLEANS FOR THE CONTINUED RECOVERY AND REBUILDING EFFORTS.
I ADD THIS COMMITMENT WAS INCREMENTAL TO A LONGSTANDING, MULTI-YEAR HISTORY OF OUR EMPLOYEES AND THE COMPANY GIVING TO THE UNITED WAY AND OTHER NON-PROFITS IN THE AREA.
OUR FACILITY WAS ALSO ACTIVE IN SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY AT THE OUTSET OF THE PANDEMIC.
ALONG WITH ENHANCING SAFETY MEASURES TO ENSURE THE HEALTH OF OUR EMPLOYEES, WE SUPPORTED A RANGE OF EFFORTS INCLUDING PROVIDING MEALS TO FIRST RESPONDERS, KEEPING US SAFE AND DONATING TO THE RESTAURANT WORKER RELIEF FUND TO AID OUR NEIGHBORS WHO STRUGGLED FINANCIALLY AS CUSTOMERS WERE FORCED TO STAY HOME.
IN ADDITION TO THESE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, WE'VE CONSISTENTLY OFFERED CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL SCHOOLS, NURSING HOMES, MAJOR COMMUNITY EVENTS AND OTHER KID AND CHILD RELATED ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT KEY OCCASIONS.
AS WE CONTINUE TO DONATE FUNDING, PRODUCT AND VOLUNTEER TIME TO ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS A COMMUNITY THAT ADDRESSED THE NEEDS TO PROVIDE CRITICAL SUPPORT.
PLEASE KNOW THAT WE TAKE OUR ROLE AS LEADERS IN THE GREAT COMMUNITY VERY SERIOUSLY.
AS YOU CONSIDER THESE APPLICATIONS, WE HOPE THAT YOU CAN APPRECIATE OUR PASSION TO CONTINUE TO BUILD IN NEW ORLEANS.
OUR ITAP APPLICATIONS, PRESENTED A PACKAGE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS ACROSS MULTIPLE FACILITIES ALL TO ACHIEVE A SIMPLE YET POWERFUL GOAL TO INCREASE OUR EXPANSION AND PRODUCTION CAPABILITY, WHICH RULE RESULT IN GREATER RETURN TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.
TO BE CLEAR, WE DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX MATTER, BUT THERE ARE ALSO SOME MISCONCEPTIONS I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY FOR THE COMMITTEE.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME PUBLIC COMMENTARY THAT WE ARE NOT PAYING THE TAXES WE OWE, WHICH IS NOT ACCURATE.
WE HAVE TIMELY PAID EVERY PROPERTY TAX INVOICE ISSUED TO DATE.
WE'VE CONSISTENTLY BEEN A TOP 10 PROPERTY TAXPAYER SINCE AS FAR BACK AS 2017.
I MIGHT ADD, BEFORE WE CONSOLIDATED, WE WERE NOT IN THE TOP 10.
OUR NEW ORLEANS 2021 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
WE WERE THE FOURTH LARGEST PROPERTY TAXPAYER IN NEW ORLEANS.
SINCE CONSOLIDATION, WE'VE GONE FROM NOT BEING IN THE TOP 10 TO A TOP WITHIN THE TOP 5 AND NUMBER 4, THERE HAVE BEEN SUGGESTIONS THAT WE HAVE NOT APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED THE PROCESS LAID OUT BEFORE US.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION.
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE ITAP PROCEDURES HAS PRESENTED TO US.
GIVEN OUR CONFIDENCE IN THE FACT OUR ITAP APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED.
[00:50:01]
WE HAVE SIMPLY PRESERVED OUR APPEAL RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO UNTIL A FINAL DECISION IS MADE.TO REITERATE THE ECONOMIC INCENTIVES OFFERED THROUGH ITAP AND PRESENTED US BY THE STATE OF LOUISIANA WERE A VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
OUR DECISION TO CONSOLIDATE OUR COFFEE OPERATIONS TO NEW ORLEANS.
TO THIS END, ALL OF OUR ITAP APPLICATIONS IN 2010 FROM 2010-2015 WERE APPROVED WITHOUT INCIDENT.
NUMBER TWO ALL OF OUR ITAP ISSUES OR POST EXECUTIVE ORDER APPLICATIONS THAT DO NOT ALIGN WITH THE LOCAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.
I WILL REPEAT IN 2005, WE MADE A DECISION TO STAY IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND REBUILD.
IN 2010 WITH YOUR HELP, WE DECIDED TO INVEST AND GROW, WHICH WE HAVE.
WE'RE INCREDIBLY PROUD TO BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND AN APPRECIATIVE OF THE SUPPORT WE'VE RECEIVED.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO BEING A LEADING MEMBER IN THE AREA WHILE SUPPORTING THE NEEDS OF OUR FELLOW RESIDENTS, OUR FAMILIES, OUR FRIENDS, OUR EMPLOYEES, AS WE HAVE FOR OVER 60 YEARS.
IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO AGAIN THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR TIMING, WILLINGNESS TO HEAR OUR APPEAL TODAY.
WE BELIEVE THE FACTS ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD BASED ON THE CONTRACTUAL DETAILS OF THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WE SIGN WHEN WE CONSOLIDATE OUR COFFEE OPERATIONS TO NEW ORLEANS, WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT OUR ITAP APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED.
WE HAVE NOT ONLY FULFILLED, BUT FAR EXCEEDED OUR ANNUAL JOB IN PAYROLL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT.
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE OUTLINE ITAP APPLICATION PROCESS AND HAVE NO OUTSTANDING TAX DEBT OR PREVIOUS FILINGS UNDER REVIEW.
IN SUMMATION, WE ASK THAT YOU SEND OUR ITAP APPLICATIONS TO THE GOVERNOR WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL GIVEN THAT WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY MET ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA.
WITH THAT, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ONE HOUSEKEEPING THING, BUT I DO HAVE SOME FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS.
WHAT WAS THE CONTRACT NUMBER THAT YOU SAID WAS LEFT OUT? I DID NOT WRITE IT DOWN.
>> ONE OF THE NUMBERS WAS MISSING OUT OF THE CONTRACT NUMBER 2019, 0391 ON THE AGENDA IT SAYS 2013, 031.
>> OH, IT WAS JUST TRANSPOSE THEN.
>> I GOT IT. I'M WITH YOU. THANK YOU.
THERE'S NOT ADDITIONAL CONTRACT IS JUST THE CONTRACT IS MISNUMBERED.
>> TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND JUST A LITTLE BIT.
FIRST OF ALL, THE DECISION TO RELOCATE YOUR ENTIRE OPERATIONS INTO LOUISIANA INTO NEW ORLEANS WAS HUGE AND WE THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE WHEN I LEARNED THAT FOLGERS IS MADE IN NEW ORLEANS, I THOUGHT THAT'S PRETTY COOL ACTUALLY [LAUGHTER] RATHER THAN ANYWHERE ELSE.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, THE ORIGINAL IDEA OF WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO IN NEW ORLEANS WHEN YOU SIGN THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT IN 2010, DID THAT INCLUDE THE CONTRACT NUMBERS THAT ARE BEFORE US TODAY? IN OTHER WORDS, HAVE YOU COMPLETED THE ORIGINAL SET OF EXPANSION OR WORK THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO AND THIS IS SOMETHING ADDITIONAL OR WAS THIS PART OF WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO DO WHEN YOU RELOCATED EVERYTHING TO NEW ORLEANS? AM I MAKING MYSELF CLEAR?
>> I BELIEVE SO. THE ORIGINAL GOAL.
>> PULL THE MIC A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOU, PLEASE.
I'M SORRY. IT'LL PULL. JUST PULL IT.
>> THE ORIGINAL WAS COMPLETED.
THUS, THE ADDITIONAL ONES BEING ASKED ARE BUILDING UPON THE FACT THAT WE ARE FULLY CONSOLIDATED HERE WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND CONTINUE TO EXPAND THAT BUSINESS AND THE FOOTPRINT OF OUR BUSINESSES AS WE HAVE ACQUIRED OTHER BRANDS, WE HAVE BROUGHT THAT BUSINESS INTO NEW ORLEANS.
SO A PERFECT EXAMPLE WOULD BE WE MAKE A COFFEE BRAND CALLED CAFE BUSTELO, IT WAS ORIGINALLY PRODUCED IN MIAMI, FLORIDA THAT BRAND IS NOW PRODUCED IN THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, WHICH THE ADDITIONAL ITAP APPLICATIONS WE'RE HELPING ENABLE.
>> EXCUSE ME, CHAIRMAN. THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT PERIOD TERM IS FROM 2010 THROUGH 2020.
ALL OF THE INVESTMENT JOB AND PAYROLL REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THAT AGREEMENT RUN THROUGH THAT TERM.
THESE INVESTMENTS WERE ALL MADE DURING THE TERM OF THAT AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE OBLIGATIONS THAT WERE LAID OUT IN THAT FROM THE INCENTIVES PERSPECTIVES, ITAP WAS STILL ACTIVE DURING THAT TERM, AS WELL AS IN THE EVENT HAD FOLGERS BEEN NON-COMPLIANT AT THE TIME
[00:55:02]
THESE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE STILL HAD FALLEN UNDER THE TERMS OF THAT CONTRACT.>> I'M NOT POSITIVE. I'M MAKING MY QUESTION CLEAR BECAUSE I HEAR YOU THAT OR I'M NOT CLEAR ON THE ANSWER.
WAS THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT IN 2010, WAS THAT COMPLETED AND THESE CONTRACTS ARE ADDITIONAL EXPANSIONS OR WAS EVERYTHING COMPLETED AND NOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS DEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT TO THE 2010 PLANS.
THESE CONTRACTS WERE THEY SUBSEQUENT, WERE THEY DEVELOP SUBSEQUENT TO THE 2010 PLANS OR WERE THEY PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN?
>> THE PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN AS WE WERE THE SINGLE-SOURCE MANUFACTURING NOW, SO AS WE BUILT 2010, CONSOLIDATING ALL THE OPERATIONS, THE IDEA FROM GOING FORWARD AS ANY NEW BUSINESS THAT WE WOULD BRING INTO OUR PORTFOLIO WILL THEN SUBSEQUENTLY BE PRODUCED IN NEW ORLEANS AS A CONSOLIDATION OPPORTUNITY, AS I MENTIONED, AND THEN FITTING THAT IN UNDER THE 10-YEAR AGREEMENT THAT WE MADE IN 2010, THAT WAS GOING IN POSITION AS WE DID THIS.
SO ANY DECISION WE'VE MADE, WE LOOK AT SOURCING IT IN NEW ORLEANS AS THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME AND BRINGING THAT BUSINESS ELSEWHERE WHERE IT'S BEING MANUFACTURED TO NEW ORLEANS.
AS I MENTIONED, THE ONE WITH A CLOSING FACILITY IN MIAMI, FLORIDA AND MOVING THAT MANUFACTURING TO NEW ORLEANS OCCURRED IN THIS PERIOD OF TIME.
>> RESPECTFULLY, I FEEL LIKE YOU-ALL ARE MAKING ARGUMENTS TO ME INSTEAD OF ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO TRY ONE MORE TIME.
I THINK THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT IN 2010 ENVISIONED ABOUT A $69 MILLION INVESTMENT.
ARE THESE CONTRACTS PART OF THEIR ORIGINAL $69 MILLION INVESTMENT OR ARE THESE OVER AND ABOVE THE $69 MILLION?
>> THESE ARE OVER AND ABOVE, SIR.
>> NOW WE'RE GETTING TO IT. THESE CONTRACTS WERE CONTEMPLATED AFTER YOU MADE THE DECISION TO COME, YOU ENTERED INTO CORPORATE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT.
>> THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DEVELOPED SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR DECISION TO COME HERE.
THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET TO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DID YOU MAKE ANY APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS FOR APPROVAL OF THESE CONTRACTS?
>> LET ME HELP YOU OUT. OR DID THE NOTICE TO NEW ORLEANS AND THE NEW ORLEANS SUBSEQUENT REACTION TO THE NOTICE COME FROM LED.
LET ME HELP YOU OUT. NORMALLY WHAT HAPPENS OUT, WE APPROVE CONTRACTS AND LED SENDS A NOTICE TO THE LOCALS SAYING WE'VE GOTTEN THESE CONTRACTS BEFORE US, YOU HAVE X NUMBER OF DAYS TO RESPOND.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS, DID YOU-ALL FILE ANY APPLICATIONS WITH THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS OR DID NEW ORLEANS FIND OUT ABOUT THESE PROGRAMS THROUGH LED?
>> I CANNOT SPEAK FOR NEW ORLEANS, BUT WE FILED ALL OF THE 2017, 2018 AND 2019 APPLICATIONS AFTER THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WITH THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS ADVISED US THAT THE 2017 AND THE 2018 APPLICATIONS WERE NOT NECESSARY AND ONLY ACCEPTED THE 2019 APPLICATIONS FOR ITAP.
>> WHAT WERE THE REASONS GIVEN FOR BEING NOT NECESSARY?
>> THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS INDICATED THAT THEIR RESOLUTION THAT THEY HAD PASSED WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE 2017 AND 2018 APPLICATIONS.
>> WHEN YOU SAY RESOLUTION, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ORDINANCE.
>> FORGIVE ME. CORRECT. I STAND CORRECTED.
>> THIS IS THE ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THE CRITERIA THAT IS BEING ARGUED IS MORE STRINGENT THAN THE ATTEMPT REQUIREMENTS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN 2018.
IT WAS 2020 WHEN THE APPLICATIONS FOR ALL YEARS '17, '18 AND '19 WENT BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND THE ORDINANCE WAS REFERENCED IN THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE COUNCIL AS ALL OF THE CRITERIA THAT NEEDED TO BE MET.
>> WERE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN FOLGERS AND THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS OR THE SCHOOL BOARD OR ANY OF THE LOCAL ENTITIES ABOUT WHAT THE EXPANSION PLANS WERE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE INTENDING TO DO UNDER THESE CONTRACTS BEFORE YOU CAME TO LED?
[01:00:05]
>> YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY MEETINGS THAT HAPPENED OR YOU JUST DON'T KNOW?
>> AT THAT TIME I WAS DONE IN THIS ROLE.
WE CAN FIND OUT THAT ANSWER FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE HERE AT THE TIME, BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER CURRENTLY WITH ME. I DON'T KNOW.
>> I'M GOING TO TAKE A TIMEOUT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR FOLGERS FOLKS? WE HAVE PLENTY OF FOLKS THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MONOPOLIZING US SO FAR, BUT THERE'S SOME THINGS I NEED TO GET CLEAR IN MY MIND. MR. HOLLEY?
>> GREAT. ARE YOU CONTENDING THAT THE SIX APPROVAL WAS THAT WAS MADE BY THIS BOARD FALL UNDER THE CEA AGREEMENT?
>> WHAT IS YOUR AUTHORITY FOR THAT BELIEF OR OPINION, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS FOR 10 YEARS?
>> HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE CEA BEFORE COMING HERE TODAY?
>> YOU MUST BE FAMILIAR WITH BEFORE I CAN GET TO IT.
>> ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4.01, LED OBLIGATIONS.
IT'S ONLY TWO PARAGRAPHS SO I'LL READ IN CASE YOU DON'T REMEMBER IT.
GOES ON BONDS BASED ON YOUR REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE COMPANY, THE COMPANY SHOULD QUALIFY FOR THE GULF OPPORTUNITY ZONE BOND PROGRAM AND LED WILL ASSIST WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR AND SUPPORT APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE COMPANY'S APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROGRAM RULES, ETC.
SECOND PARAGRAPH, INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION BASED UPON REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE COMPANY THAT FACILITIES SHOULD QUALIFY FOR THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.
LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 7, SECTION 21F, AND LED AGREED TO SUPPORT APPROVAL BY BC AND THE GOVERNOR OF THE COMPANY'S APPLICATIONS, THEREFORE.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE WORD SHOULD APPROVE OBLIGATES THIS BOARD TO GO BEYOND ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS IN PARTICULARLY THIS CONTRACT?
>> NO, SIR. OUR POSITION IS THERE WAS A RECRUITMENT EFFORT BY THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO ATTRACT FOLGERS TO NEW ORLEANS TO EXPAND TO CONSOLIDATE ITS OPERATIONS.
THE INCENTIVE PACKAGE THAT WAS OFFERED TO INDUCE THAT INVESTMENT INCLUDED THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AND IT INCLUDED A 10-YEAR TERM IN WHICH THAT INCENTIVE WOULD BE OFFERED AND AVAILABLE FOR THE COMPANY TO UTILIZE.
THE COMPANY EMBARKED ON THIS AGREEMENT DURING THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF THE AGREEMENT PURSUING THE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM WITHOUT INCIDENT.
EVERY APPLICATION HAD BEEN APPROVED AND I WOULD BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE A CASE THAT THERE WAS SOME LEVEL OF RELIANCE BY FOLGERS THAT THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT TERM WAS OPEN.
IT HAD BEEN RECEIVING APPROVALS FOR ALL OF ITS STEPS.
WE HAD A CHANGE IN THEIR PROGRAM RULES AND PROCEDURES AND WE'RE STIPULATING THAT THE RULES, I'LL SAY THE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE RESOLUTION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORLEANS, AND THE PROCEDURE THAT STATES THAT THE SHARE OF SHALL FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL ARE THE TRIP WIRES THAT CAUSED FOLGERS TO NOT RECEIVE THE LOCAL APPROVALS FOR THEIR ITEMS. BECAUSE WHEN ONLY THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY RULES WERE APPLIED, THEIR APPLICATIONS WERE APPROVED.
IT WAS NOT UNTIL WE RAN INTO LOCAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT HAD ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS WHICH ONE OF
[01:05:01]
THEM WAS USED AS A HAMMER AGAINST US THROUGH THE LOCAL PROCESS.THAT IS IN THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY RULES A COMPANY CAN FILE AN ADVANCE, SPEND ITS MONEY, AND SO LONG AS IT FOLLOWS ITS APPLICATION WITHIN 90 DAYS OF FINISHING THE PROJECT, THEY ARE STILL DEEMED TIMELY, THEY ARE STILL DEEMED ABLE TO PURSUE ITEM.
THAT IS HOW THE PROGRAM RAN VERY CONSISTENTLY PRIOR TO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
THE NEW ORLEANS RULE SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
YOU MUST FIRST BEFORE YOU FILE YOUR ADVANCED NOTIFICATION, YOU MUST GO FILE A LOCAL NOTICE OF INTEREST WITH ORLEANS PARISH, THEN GO FILE YOUR ADVANCED NOTIFICATION AND THEN GO START TO STATE PROCESS.
WE COULD NOT DO THAT WITH THE 18 AND 19 APPLICATIONS BECAUSE THIS COMPANY WAS FOLLOWING BCI RULES.
SO WE RAN SMACK DAB INTO WHETHER THEY CLAIM IN THEIR RESOLUTIONS THEY USE OR NOT, IT WAS NOT HOW THEY WANTED THEIR PROGRAM RUN AT ANY LEVEL WHATSOEVER.
THE 2019 APPLICATIONS WERE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVERY LOCAL PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINE OF ORLEANS PARISH, AND IT WAS DEEMED DENIED BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA THAT THEY ESTABLISHED.
ALL 17,18 AND 19 APPLICATIONS WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THIS BOARD BECAUSE THEY MET THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY RULES AND REGULATIONS.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ARRANGEMENT, FOLGERS, YOU'LL HAVE OPERATIONS AROUND THE STATE.
WE WANT YOU HERE IN LOUISIANA WILL INCENTIVIZE YOU TO CLOSE FACILITIES, MOVE JOBS, ADD PAYROLL, BRING THAT HERE, AND IN RETURN, WE HAVE THESE INCENTIVES THAT WE'RE GOING TO OFFER YOU.
OUR POSITION IS THAT THAT WORKED, FOLGERS CAME.
THEY NOT ONLY MET THE $60 MILLION THEY OFFERED WHEN THEY ENTERED INTO THIS DEAL, THEY FAR EXCEEDED IT BY TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
THEY WERE NOT A TOP TAXPAYER IN THE PARISH BEFORE THIS.
THERE ARE ONLY THREE COMPANIES THAT PAY MORE PROPERTY TAXES AND FOLGERS SINCE LED RECRUITED THIS COMPANY AND PERFORMED ITS DUTIES TO BRING NEW INVESTMENT AND JOBS TO THIS STATE.
ALL WE'RE ASKING IS THAT DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT, WE HONOR THE SPIRIT OF THE INCENTIVE ARRANGEMENTS THAT WERE OFFERED.
>> WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO IN 2010, THE EXECUTIVE ORDER DID NOT EXIST AT THAT TIME.
>> DO YOU CONTEND THAT THIS PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THESE SIX EXEMPTIONS, IS OR IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER?
>> I'M GOING TO TAKE THE LIBERTY OF OPINION.
WHEN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS ISSUED, THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CLEARLY DELINEATED A LINE IN THE SAND.
AS YOU ALL SEE ON YOUR AGENDAS, WE HAVE PRE-EXECUTIVE ORDER APPLICATIONS THAT FALL UNDER A CERTAIN SET OF RULES.
THEY DON'T HAVE LOCAL APPROVALS.
WE HAVE POST-EXECUTIVE ORDER APPLICATIONS THAT COME BEFORE THIS BOARD THAT MUST FOLLOW THE LOCALS.
IN OUR OPINION, WE JUST FEEL THIS COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT, WHICH IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THIS COMPANY IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THAT GRANDFATHER STATUS BECAUSE THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN A COMMITMENT MADE TO THIS COMPANY AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED IN THE PRE-EXECUTIVE ORDER POSTURE, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN AND THAT DID NOT LAND IN THE RULES.
SO WE HAD TO FOLLOW POST-EXECUTIVE ORDER RULES AND PROCEDURES, WHICH LANDED US UNANIMOUSLY HERE WITH THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY RULES BUT WE RAN AFOUL OF THE RULES THAT ORLEANS PARISH GOVERNING BODIES HAVE INTACT THAT FAR EXCEED THE RULES THAT THIS BOARD UTILIZES TO APPROVE.
IS THE PROPERTY ON THE TAX ROLLS TODAY?
>> IT'S A CATCH-22, QUITE FRANKLY.
>> NOT YOUR QUESTION, BUT PUTTING PROPERTY TAXES ON THE ROLES WOULD CAUSE FOLGERS TO LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO PURSUE APPEAL AND TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS EXEMPTION.
SO THERE HAS BEEN A VERY STRONG EFFORT TO KEEP AND PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF FOLGERS TO HAVE OUR DAY HERE BEFORE YOU, SO WE COULD HAVE A FINAL RULING HERE.
WHEN THE TAX ASSESSOR MADE AN EFFORT TO PLACE THIS PROPERTY ON THE ROLES LAST SUMMER, WE WENT TO COURT.
WE WENT TO COURT IN NEW ORLEANS PARISH TO PRESERVE
[01:10:02]
OUR RIGHTS TO HAVE OUR OPPORTUNITIES TO APPEAL TO THIS BOARD.IT WAS DETERMINED AND WE HAVE COUNSEL HERE WHO CAN SPEAK MORE SPECIFICALLY, BUT THE GIST OF WHAT HAPPENED IS THE COURT RULE TO ALLOW FOLGERS PROPERTY TO REMAIN OFF OF THE ROLES.
ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTY IN ORLEANS PARISH THAT WAS TAXABLE LANDED ON THE ROLES SO THAT THE ORLEANS PARISH COULD RECEIVE THEIR REVENUE.
THAT OPINION, WHICH I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT, WAS APPEALED TO THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS IN THE AREA, IT WAS DENIED.
ANOTHER WRIT WAS ISSUED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, AND THAT WRIT WAS DENIED.
SO IN THE DECISION BY THE ORLEANS PARISH COURT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY IS THE PROPER JURISDICTION FOR HANDLING THIS MATTER AND NOT THE COURTS AND THEY WERE ALLOWING THE PROPERTY TO NOT BE TAXED UNTIL RESOLUTION COULD BE HEARD BY THIS BOARD.
>> IS THERE ANY REASON YOU COULD NOT HAVE PAID IT UNDER PROTEST? IS THAT FROM REGULAR ADVICE OR WHAT WAS THE REASON THERE?
>> YES, SIR. AS YOU MAY RECALL, LAST BOARD MEETING, WE HAD A CASE BEFORE HERE, THE SIERRA FRANK CASE WHERE THEY ACTUALLY DID PAY UNDER PROTEST AND THEY LOST THOSE YEARS OF EXEMPTION.
>> MY FINAL QUESTION, INITIALLY, WHEN THE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM WAS GIVEN TO YOU BACK IN 2010, WAS THERE AN ESTIMATION AT THAT TIME OF THE TAX SAVINGS THAT WOULD BE MADE TO FOLGERS?
>> I'M SURE THERE WAS BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT NUMBER, SIR.
>> DOES 17.8 MILLION SOUND ABOUT CORRECT?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY REFERENCE FOR THAT.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE MR. CHAIRMAN.
SIR, WITHOUT THE INVESTMENT FROM THE 2010 CEA, WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE INVESTMENTS IN THESE SIX CONTRACTS?
>> IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, IF WE HADN'T MADE THE INVESTMENT IN 2010 AGAIN THE INVESTMENT WAS GREATLY INFLUENCED BY THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.
>> THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS RECRUITMENT AND FOR YOU GUYS CONSOLIDATING YOUR COMPANY IN AN AREA FORGET ABOUT NEW ORLEANS, FORGET ABOUT ANYWHERE ELSE, WAS TO EXPAND YOUR COMPANY.
IT WAS TO BE ABLE TO OFFER NEW PRODUCTS IS WHAT I'M ASSUMING SITTING HERE.
THAT ORIGINAL PLAN IS COMING TOGETHER WITH THE SIX INVESTMENTS IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
>> IF THERE'S NO 2010, THERE'S NO TELLING IF THERE HAD BEEN ANYTHING PAST THAT.
>> THE ORIGINAL NOTICE BECAUSE THERE ARE 2,010 CEA IF YOU ASKED ME, THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO ASK OR CREATE A RULE OF SOME NOTICE OF INVESTMENT TO CREATE CONSISTENCY FOR COMPANIES LIKE YOURS LARGE WHO ARE COMPETING WITH WITHIN THEMSELVES, MUCH LESS FROM STATE TO STATE, FROM PARISH TO PARISH.
TO BE CONSISTENT YOU WILL HAVE ALMOST HAD TO KNOW IF YOU ARE ON THE GIVING END OF THIS EXEMPTION THAT THESE THINGS WERE GOING TO HAPPEN? [OVERLAPPING].
>> TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED YOU AS A COMPANY TO DO THESE TYPE OF THINGS AND YOU SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED FROM ME IF I'M IN THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS TO GIVE YOU THE SAME EXEMPTIONS GOING FORWARD.
WITH EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, EVERYTHING ELSE HAVEN'T BEEN COMPLIED TO FROM WHICH I BELIEVE EVERYTHING WAS COMPLIED EXCEPT FOR THAT ORDINANCE FROM THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
>> CORRECT. IN FURTHERANCE TO THIS FROM THE CENTER DAILY NEWSPAPER NOVEMBER 15, 2013, I READ SMOKER'S COFFEE PRODUCTION WAS CONSOLIDATED TO THE NEW ORLEANS AREA AS PART OF THE $70 MILLION MOVE ANNOUNCED IN 2010 CLOSING PLANTS IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, AND SHERMAN, TEXAS.
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA HAD ONE OF THOSE OTHER FACILITIES HAS BEEN CHOSEN FOR THE CONSOLIDATION.
[01:15:01]
ORLEANS WON THE CONSOLIDATION COMPETITIVE BATTLE.IN THE ANALYSIS AS TO WHERE TO PUT THIS SITE, LOUISIANA PUT A VERY COMPELLING OFFER THAT INCLUDED I TAP AS PART OF ITS INCENTIVE AND RECRUITMENT PACKAGE.
AS A RESULT, LOUISIANA IS NOT LISTED AS A LOCATION WHERE SOMETHING WAS CLOSED.
LOUISIANA HAS TAKEN A FACILITY THAT DIDN'T HIT THE STATISTICAL PROPERTY TAX METERS IN ORLEANS PARISH TO BE THE FOURTH LARGEST PAYER IN THE CITY, BUT ONLY THREE COMPANIES THAT PAY MORE PROPERTY TAX.
THAT IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE INITIAL RECRUITMENT AND THEN FOLGERS CONTINUED BUILD AND CONTINUED INVESTMENT INTO THE PARISH.
>> I BELIEVE IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, I BELIEVE IN LOCAL CONTROL.
I WOULDN'T BE UP HERE IF I PUT ONE PARISH PRESIDENT.
>> BUT JUST LIKE IN MY PARISH WE MAKE MISTAKES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL ESPECIALLY IN THE BEGINNING PHASES OF THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER.
I JUST THINK THAT THIS WAS A MISTAKE MAYBE ON BOTH ENDS.
MY GOOD FRIENDS SUBMITTED A LETTER TODAY, BUT I THINK IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THIS BOARD THAT AREA MANY OF THOSE 700 JOBS RESIDED IN MY PARISH.
FOR ME, IT WOULDN'T BE A GOOD THING IF WE DID NOT APPROVE THIS TODAY. THANK YOU SIR.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE FOLKS FROM FOLGERS FROM THE BOARD? MR. [INAUDIBLE].
>> A LOT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT THE COMMITMENT OF THE STATE, DOES THE SECRETARY CARE OR COMMENT OR CLARIFY WHAT THE COMMITMENT OF THE STATE WAS IN 2010 AND DID THAT EXTEND TO THE CONTRACTS? IN YOUR OPINION, DOES THAT EXTEND TO THE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US?
>> DON PEARSON, SECRETARY LOUISIANA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CENTER.
I'M TAKING A LOOK BACK AT WHAT WAS NEGOTIATED CO-OPERATIVE IN DEBORAH AGREEMENT, WHAT WOULD THE STATE PROVIDE? WHAT WOULD FOLGERS PROVIDE? THEN EVENTUALLY COMING TO A CONTRACT, A HANDSHAKE, A CEA AND WHAT WAS ENUMERATED WAS THAT A COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE, A VERY ATTRACTIVE PACKAGE WAS PUT ON THE TABLE.
AS MR. LEONARD CORRECTLY POINTS OUT, LOUISIANA WON THE COMPETITION AND THE TWO PARTIES HAD AN OBLIGATION TO EACH OTHER.
LOUISIANA'S PACKAGE WAS VALUED AT ROUGHLY $53 MILLION.
WE WERE ASKING FOR TWO THINGS.
ONE, AN INVESTMENT OF AT LEAST $69 MILLION, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY AND WHY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERFORMS ITS IMPORTANT ROLE WAS THE ASSURANCES THAT FOLGERS WOULD EMPLOY MORE THAN 500 PEOPLE OVER THE FOLLOWING 10 YEAR PERIOD AND PRODUCE ROUGHLY AVERAGE SAY $35 MILLION A YEAR IN PAYROLL FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE 10 YEARS.
I THINK THE STATE PERFORMED ITS OBLIGATIONS.
I THINK THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT THE INITIAL INVESTMENT WENT UNDER ITEP APPROVED BY THIS BOARD AND THAT THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF THAT WERE ENJOYED BY FOLGERS.
BEYOND THAT THEIR SUCCESS WHICH ONE COULD ARGUE THE STATE PLAYED A ROLE IN ALLOWED THEM TO MAKE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS AND THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED HERE TODAY BY THIS BOARD.
>> DOES LAD HAVE AN OPINION ON THE ONES BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY? WAS THAT PART OF THE ORIGINAL OBLIGATION?
>> THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL OBLIGATION IF WE WENT BACK AND WE WOULD CLAW BACK AGAINST FOLGERS SHOULD THEY HAVE ONLY COME WITH $50 MILLION OF INVESTMENT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE.
OR IF THEY ONLY EMPLOYED 400 PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE NUMBERS THAT WERE DIRECTED.
[01:20:04]
IN TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, I THINK ALL THE OBLIGATIONS WERE MET BY THE PARTIES AND THESE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS WERE MADE.THEY WERE MADE POST EXECUTIVE ORDER, SO IT'S IN THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT THERE WILL BE A VOICE BY THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES.
WE MAY OR MAY NOT LIKE WHAT LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES CHOOSE TO EITHER BASIS.
BUT LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES DO A LOT OF THINGS.
THEY MAKE SIGN ORDINANCES, THEY MAKE ZONING, THEY MAKE LAND-USE ORDINANCES.
WE RESPECT THAT AND I THINK THAT WAS THE REQUIREMENT THAT CAME FORWARD FROM THE GOVERNOR WAS TO RESPECT WHAT PARISH PRESIDENT WANTS IN HIS PARISH.
WE WORK IN ALL 64 AND IT'S NOT UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
THAT'S JUST PART OF THE UNIQUENESS OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
I THINK THE ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY ARE NOT COMPLETELY TIED TO THE PREVIOUS COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT IN WHICH ALL PARTIES EXECUTED THEIR RESPONSIBLE ROLES.
>> BUT IT SEEMS THERE WAS AN IMPLIED OBLIGATION IF THEY MADE THE ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE IN THE ITAP PROGRAM AS STATED BEFORE OR NOT.
>> IN ORDER FOR THAT TO BE A PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, AND WE DO THIS WITH SOME OF OUR EXISTING INDUSTRY.
WE SIT DOWN AND WE HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT A PROPOSED EXPANSION.
SOMETIMES WE WORK OUT ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS THAT ARE RELATED TO THOSE AND ENUMERATE WHAT THESE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS ARE.
NOW THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME TO US AND SO THEY DON'T ALWAYS DO THAT.
THEY CAN USE FIRMS THAT DO THIS TYPE OF CONSULTING WORK TO FILE THE APPROPRIATE PAPERS AND BE ADVISED OF THE CURRENT CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY WILL ASK FOR THESE EXEMPTIONS.
BUT THERE WAS NOT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, A PROPOSED PATH FORWARD THAT WAS EXECUTED WITH FOLGERS.
I COULD HAVE MISSED SOME OF THAT, I WAS NOT THE SECRETARY AT THE TIME.
I THINK IT IS FOR YOU, MR. LEONARD.
REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THIS COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT AND THE WORD SUPPORT LEDC SHOULD SUPPORT.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WORD MEANS SUPPORT?
IT'S OUR OPINION THAT THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT LAID OUT MINIMUM EXPECTATIONS FOR FOLGERS TO ME, WHICH IS WHERE THE $60 MILLION INVESTMENT COMES FROM.
THAT HAD FOLGERS NOT MET THAT MINIMUM INVESTMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PENALIZED.
TO NOT APPROVE AN EYE OUT FOR EXCEEDING $60 MILLION APPEARS TO ALSO BE A PENALTY IN ITS OWN FORM.
SHOULD MEAN AND TO SUPPORT, WE RECEIVE FULL SUPPORT FOR EVERY ITAP PRIOR TO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
I DO BELIEVE SUPPORT WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERING US AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER PROCESS THAT WE KNOW WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THIS COMPANY AND WE'VE COMMITTED TO SUPPORT ITAP.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU ADHERE TO THE PRE-EXECUTIVE ORDERS LIKE OTHER FOLKS WHO HAD ADVANCED NOTIFICATIONS FILED.
ALSO THINK SUPPORT COULD HAVE BEEN HAVING FOLKS HELPING ORLEANS PARISH UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE A UNIQUE PROJECT COMING BEFORE THEM FOR APPROVAL.
THAT WE DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT AND LOOK AT ALL THE GREAT THINGS THAT THIS COMPANY HAS DONE IN YOUR RULES ARE OUTSIDE OF THE BCNI RULES, AND HELP US LOBBY AND GET THE SUPPORT NEEDED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
IT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT IN THIS AGREEMENT.
BUT OUR POSITION IS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF RELIANCE ON THE PAST.
IF WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT, IT'S WORKED PERFECTLY IN THE PAST.
WE'RE CONTINUING TO BUILD OFF OUR INVESTMENTS IN THE FUTURE.
WE HAVE CONTINUED AS FOLGERS TO DO ALL THE SAME THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE STEP-BY-STEP WITH THE INVESTMENTS AND THE JOBS TO RECEIVE ITAP APPROVALS AND HOPES THAT WE WOULD IN THE FUTURE.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT SUPPORT WOULD HAVE INCLUDED SOME DECISION BY THIS BOARD TO GRANDFATHER YOU INTO THE PRE EO RULES. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> THIS IS THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
[01:25:01]
WHICH IS NOT A PART OF THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR.>> YES, SIR. BUT I WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ANY OTHER BODIES TO DO SO, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED A FORM OF SUPPORT.
>> COULD FOLGERS HAVE AVOIDED THIS ISSUE ENTIRELY BY FILING ADVANCED NOTIFICATIONS, SO AS TO PRECLUDE THE NECESSITY OF FALLING UNDER THE POSTERIOR RULES.
>> THAT DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OPTION FOR FOLGERS, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTRARY TO THE WAY THEY HAD UTILIZE THE PROGRAM FOR EVERY YEAR PRIOR TO THE CHANGES THAT WERE COMING INTO PLACE.
>> BUT IT WAS AN OPTION AVAILABLE?
>> YES, SIR. IT'S AN OPTION FOR EVERYBODY. YES, SIR.
>> THESE APPLICATIONS AND THEY'RE ONLY APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS BOARD THEY WERE APPROVED.
WHEN THESE APPLICATIONS ORIGINALLY CAME TO THIS BOARD THIS BOARD APPROVED THOSE APPLICATIONS.
>> THAT WOULD BE DEEMED SUPPORT.
>> ABSOLUTELY, AND LED SUPPORTED US THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M WRESTLING WITH IS I DON'T KNOW HOW WE HAD NOT SUPPORTED.
HOW LED AND THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF FOLGERS.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT CONTENTION, FRANKLY.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIANT WITH THE CONTRACT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW LED AND BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF FOLGERS UP TO THIS POINT.
>> FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS A POSITION THAT IS BEING PRESENTED.
I THINK OUR POSITION IS WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
>> WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WE'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE THUS FAR?
>> WE MAY HAVE GONE A LONG WAY AROUND THAT BARN, BUT I THINK WE GOT THERE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE FOLGERS FOLKS? NOW, I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS WHO HAD SIGNED UP TO COMMENT IN FAVOR OF THIS SPECIAL REQUEST, I HAVE SOME 31 CARDS.
I DON'T WANT TO IMPINGE ON ANYBODY'S RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, BUT NEITHER DO I WANT TO PARADE 31 PEOPLE ACROSS THE MEETING THAT'S GOING TO SAY THE EXACT SAME THING.
I WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ONE PERSON WHO MAY BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 31 IF THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
BUT I'M NOT INCLINED TO PROTRACT THIS MEETING BY HAVING 31 PEOPLE PARADE AND SAY, I SUPPORT FOLGERS.
MR. LEONARD, DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE THAT COULD COME AND SPEAK AND BASICALLY SUMMARIZE WHAT ALL 31 OF THESE FOLKS ARE GOING TO SAY.
>> FOLGERS HAS A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND FRIENDS WHO HAVE FILED CARDS AND HAVE JUST ASKED TO HAVE THE CARD TO READ AS SUPPORT INTO THE RECORD FOR THIS APPLICATION.
WE HAVE MR. CHRIS TRUDARROW IS SPEAKING FOR MS. CHERYL CONIC IS SPEAKING FOR MR. CHAD WRENS OR ENZ SPEAKING FOR.
TAMIKA STANSBERRY, SPEAKING FOR.
NIGEL GARBUTT SPEAKING FOR, DAVE GOWER SPEAKING FOR TRACY ANCHOR I HOPE I'M PRONOUNCING SOME OF THESE NAMES CORRECTLY, FORGIVE ME IF I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR, LAWRENCE GUERRERO, SPEAKING FOR, FLORENCE EDOUGH, SPEAKING FOR, ROBINIQUE LEBETH SPEAKING FOR.
I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME READING.
FORGIVE ME IF I'M NOT PRONOUNCING CORRECTLY.
KENNETH JONES SPEAKING FOR, GLENN VINSON SPEAKING FOR, DONALD ALFONSO'S SPEAKING FOR, SHAUNA UN'S, GIRARD FRENCH, YVETTE ROGERS, JEANNE COLLINS, JOCELYN THOMPSON,
[01:30:09]
MATTHEW HILUS, PERHAPS, I'M SORRY.PAVINA GONZALES OROGA, NATHAN MASON, JEANNETTE KNUDSEN, JILL SMILEY, CATHERINE CARES, CHAD DYER, CHRISTINE HERRERA, DOS STANAZANO, ABBY LYNNBULL, LIKE FRANK CIOLO, I BELIEVE.
THOSE ARE THE CARDS I HAVE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT.
FORGIVE ME. THESE ARE ALL OPPOSED.
WE'LL COME TO THOSE IN JUST A MOMENT.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE FOLGERS GROUP? ANYTHING IN CLOSER?
>> NO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> JUST ONE LAST COMMENT TO REGROUP.
AGAIN, THE REASON WE'RE HERE ARE BECAUSE OF THE LOCAL ORDINANCES THAT EXCEED THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY RULES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I KNOW WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT WANT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
I RECEIVED A PACKET OF INFORMATION YESTERDAY AFTERNOON THAT I DID NOT GET TO READ UNTIL ABOUT 05:30 THIS MORNING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I RECEIVED ANOTHER PACKET OF INFORMATION JUST NOW THAT I'VE OBVIOUSLY NOT READ AT ALL.
ANYTIME YOU-ALL ARE PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED, PLEASE GIVE IT TO US BEFORE THE MEETING.
GIVING IT TO ME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MEETING IS REALLY NOT PRODUCTIVE IN ANY SHAPE, FASHION, OR FORM BECAUSE I JUST DON'T HAVE TIME TO ABSORB IT.
BUT DO WE HAVE SOMEONE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE SPECIAL REQUEST? PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME.
AGAIN, I HAVE ONLY FOUR CARDS OF FOLKS THAT WANT TO SPEAK AGAINST AND I'M NOT INCLINED TO, AGAIN, PARADE THE SAME MESSAGE OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
WE'LL SEE HOW WE GO WITH THIS.
>> THANK YOU. I'M CARLOS LUIS ZERVIGON.
I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD.
>> I BELIEVE YOU-ALL DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM US.
ALL SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD SIGNED IT.
IT WAS ALSO SIGNED BY SIX OF THE SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE NEW ORLEANS CITY COUNCIL AND THE SHERIFF.
ALL OF US ASKING THAT YOU PLEASE NOT ENTERTAIN THIS APPEAL.
WE FEEL THAT WE HAD DEVELOPED AS YOU ALL ASKED US TO A PROCESS.
WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE FOLGERS.
WE LOVE HAVING FOLGERS IN NEW ORLEANS.
IN TIME IN MEMORIAL, NEW ORLEANS HAS BEEN THE BIGGEST AREA OF IMPORTING OF COFFEE IN THE UNITED STATES, IT'S DEEP WITHIN OUR CULTURE AND OUR IDENTITY.
HAVING FOLGERS THERE PARTICIPATING OUR PORT AS WHAT THEY DO MEANS A GREAT DEAL TO US AS A MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY.
AS THEY STATED, THEY HAVE PROSPERED IN OUR AREA UNDER THE PROGRAM AS I PREVIOUSLY EXISTED.
THEY USE SOME I FELT VERY HARSH WORDS TO DESCRIBE OUR LOCAL ELECTED BODY IN THEIR PRESENTATION A MOMENT AGO, SAYING A LOT OF THINGS THAT WERE NOT BROUGHT UP EARLIER.
IF IT WAS SO EGREGIOUS, I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WASN'T BROUGHT UP EARLIER.
I MAY NOT BE A LAWYER, BUT I'M AN EDUCATOR. I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT.
I KNOW WHAT THE NEEDS OF OUR SCHOOLS ARE, I KNOW HOW DESPERATELY UNDERFUNDED THEY ARE.
WE MADE A UNANIMOUS DECISION THAT WE WOULD LIKE THESE TAXES PAID, THAT THE MONEY IS TOO DESPERATELY NEEDED FOR US TO FOREGO IT.
I WOULD SUGGEST, AT LEAST FROM WHERE I SIT, THE ENTIRE INTEGRITY OF THE IDEA OF A LOCAL SAY IS THAT QUESTION TODAY.
IF WE FOLLOW WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, WE GO THROUGH A PROCESS AND NOW WE'RE FINDING OURSELVES HERE IN A TWO YEAR PROTRACTED FIGHT, WHICH TO US FEELS DELAYING AND DRAGGING IT OUT.
BUT I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD BE THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE LOCAL SAY IS APPROVED.
I WOULD ASK YOU-ALL TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING UNANIMOUS SCHOOL BOARD, UNANIMOUS CITY COUNCIL, AND THE SHERIFF ASKING THAT THIS APPEAL BE REJECTED.
[01:35:05]
>> WERE YOU PART OF THE SCHOOL BOARD WHEN THE CRITERIA WERE DEVELOPED?
>> I WAS NOT. I CAME ON LITERALLY THE MONTH AFTER THE VOTE WAS TAKEN.
I DID ATTEND THE MEETING, BUT I WAS NOT ON THE BOARD AT THAT TIME.
>> HAVE YOU DISCUSSED HOW THE CRITERIA WERE DEVELOPED WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD?
>> NO, THAT I WILL LEAVE TO THE STAFF WHO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT.
>> MY PROBLEM IS STAFF'S NOT HERE TODAY.
>> I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND HOW THOSE CRITERIA WERE DEVELOPED, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
>> NO. I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE OTHERS WHO WOULD FOLLOW ME TO SPEAK TODAY WHO'VE COME, WHO'D BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A VERY LONG TIME AS OUR PARTNERS COULD PROBABLY ANSWER ALL OF YOUR [OVERLAPPING] QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO ARE ASKING YOU TO PLEASE RESPECT IT.
I APOLOGIZE. YOU WERE JUST A LITTLE BIT LATE TO THE GAME.
>> BUT I WOULD EMPHASIZE THE ENTIRE UNANIMOUS SCHOOL BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL AND SHERIFF HAD SIGNED A LETTER ASKING, I'M THE ONE WHO CAME ON THEIR BEHEST IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS APPEAL TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE TRIP.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. WALTER.
>> HAVEN'T SEEN YOU IN TOO LONG. I HOPE YOU'RE DOING WELL.
>> THANK YOU. INDEED. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION, PLEASE?
>> MY NAME IS JOEL WALTER AND I'M A MEMBER OF AND COUNCIL TO TOGETHER LOUISIANA.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE FOLGER SPECIAL APPEALS.
IN 2020 IN THE WORST OF THE COVID DOWNTURN, THE NEW ORLEANS CITY COUNCIL AND ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD VOTED TO REJECT THE SIX INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION REQUESTS FILED BY FOLGER UNDER THE 2018, IMPORTANTLY UNDER THE 2018 RULES.
[NOISE] FOLGER ONLY APPEALS NOW TWO YEARS AFTER THOSE LOCAL REJECTIONS, ASKING THE BCI TO IGNORE THE ELECTED BODIES WHO STILL UNANIMOUSLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE REVENUE AND TO DENY THEM THE REVENUE [NOISE] THAT THE ELECTED BODIES DECIDED TO KEEP.
FOLGERS APPEALS MUST BE REJECTED.
I HAVE ESSENTIALLY FOR WHAT I BELIEVE ARE COMPELLING REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD REJECT THESE.
FIRST, THE LOCAL ITEP GUIDELINES DID NOT CAUSE THE REJECTION OF FOLGERS EXEMPTIONS.
IN FACT, IN THE RESOLUTIONS DENYING FOLGERS EXEMPTIONS, THE CITY COUNCIL PLAINLY STATED, THE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSLY FINDS THAT ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE; THE GUIDELINES, CAL NUMBER 32:472, DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE APPLICATIONS, WHICH WAS INITIATED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENT.
THE SAME LANGUAGE WAS INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTIONS DENYING EACH OF FOLGERS EXEMPTION REQUESTS.
FOLGER DID NOT ATTACH THESE RESOLUTIONS OR PROVIDE THEM TO THE BOARD.
THE RESOLUTIONS THEMSELVES EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THE DENIALS WERE BASED ON FINANCIAL NEED.
THEY SIMPLY COULD NOT AFFORD THE LOSS OF REVENUE, NOT CONNECTED TO ANY GUIDELINE OR ANY CRITERIA THAT ARE SEPARATED OR ALLEGEDLY MORE STRINGENT.
THIS IS WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVED.
WHEREAS THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, IN REJECTING THESE APPLICATIONS, THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC HAS DEVASTATED THE TOURIST BASED ECONOMY OF NEW ORLEANS AND CAUSED AN UNPRECEDENTED BUDGETARY CRISIS RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANT REVENUE SHORTFALLS, CITYWIDE REDUCTIONS IN PUBLIC SERVICES, AND MOST DEVASTATINGLY, THE FURLOUGH OF CITY EMPLOYEES, WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS THAT IN THE CURRENT BUDGETARY CLIMATE, THE NEED FOR THE IMMEDIATE TAX REVENUE TO BOLSTER THE CITY'S DEVASTATED FINANCES SIGNIFICANTLY OUTWEIGHS THE ANCILLARY ECONOMIC BENEFITS ARTICULATED IN THE APPLICATION.
THEY DECIDED TO DENY THE APPLICATIONS BASED ON THEIR FINANCIAL NEEDS.
THE ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD RESOLVED.
WHEREAS THE ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD'S ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF FURTHER DETERMINED THAT BASED ON THE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED FUTURE REVENUES FROM THE MINIMUM FOUNDATION PROGRAM DUE TO THE IMPACTS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC,
[01:40:02]
THE SCHOOL BOARD CANNOT PHYSICALLY TOLERATE THE ADDITIONAL LOSS OF REVENUE THAT WOULD RESULT IF SET APPLICATIONS WHERE TO BE GRANTED.THEY DID THIS FOR EACH OF THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU.
THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN PROVIDING THEIR CITIZENS WAS ESSENTIAL SERVICES, WAS IN FACT THE CENTERPIECE OF THE EYE ITEP REFORMS ENACTED TO GIVE THEM A VOICE.
BCI HAS AFFIRMED OR ABIDED BY THE LOCAL DECISIONS, MADE ON THIS FINANCIAL NEED BASIS IN EVERY OTHER INSTANCE, OVERTURNING THE LOCAL DECISIONS HERE.
IN THE FACE OF NECESSITIVES, FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER SPECIAL TREATMENT TO FOLGERS AND FOLGERS ALONE AND CONTRADICT BCIS OWN PROMULGATED RULES AND POLICY REFORMS. SECOND, THE LOCAL GUIDELINES IN QUESTION, WHILE NOT THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TO REJECT FOLGERS, WERE ESTABLISHED, [NOISE] NOT IN A ROGUE WAY AS I BELIEVE, AT LEAST AS I HEARD IT, SUGGESTED BY FOLGER, THEY WERE ESTABLISHED AT THE EXPLICIT DIRECTION OF THIS BOARD IN ITS 2018 RULES.
RULE 503H1 DIRECTED THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES FOR EACH PARISH, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PARISH ASSESSOR AND UPON REQUEST, THE GUIDANCE FROM THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MAKE BEST EFFORTS, NOT SHOULD, SHALL MAKE BEST EFFORTS TO DEVELOP REASONABLE GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION APPROVAL AND OR DENIAL WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT ORLEANS PARISH GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES DID.
THE NEW ORLEANS CITY COUNCIL AND THE SCHOOL BOARD, IN A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS THAT INCLUDED LED, ADHERE TO THIS DIRECTIVE AND ENACTED GUIDELINES TO REVIEW ITAP APPLICATIONS.
IN THE FIVE YEARS THAT FOLLOWED, NEITHER LED NOR THE BCI HAS EVER PLACED ORLEANS PARISH ON NOTICE THAT ANY OF THEIR GUIDELINES WERE UNACCEPTABLE OR CONFLICT WITH BCIS, WHICH IN FACT, I BELIEVE THEY DON'T.
WITHOUT SUCH NOTICE AND A SUBSEQUENT REFUSAL BY ORLEANS PARISH TO CHANGE, THIS BOARD MUST NOT WITHDRAW THE LOCAL DISCRETION GRANTED TO ORLEANS PARISH, WHICH AS FOLGER JUST TOLD YOU, WOULD BE THE CLEAR EFFECT OF SUSTAINING THESE APPEALS, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE REQUESTS WERE NOT CAUSED, THEY WERE INDEPENDENTLY DENIED FOR FINANCIAL REASONS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT REASON ACCORDING TO, WOULD SATISFY THE BOARD.
YOU CAN'T WITHDRAW THAT LOCAL DISCRETION.
IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT, IT WOULD REQUIRE AN EXPRESS DIRECTIVE, AND FRANKLY, BECAUSE IT'S BAKED INTO YOUR REGULATIONS, IT WOULD REQUIRE A RULEMAKING.
THIRD, FOLGER MISCONSTRUES THE 2010 COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE ITEPS IN QUESTION.
AS IT MUST, THE 2010 CEA WAS ENGAGED ON A SPECIFIC SET OF INVESTMENTS WHICH WERE PROVIDED A SPECIFIC SET OF INDUCEMENTS.
LOUISIANA MADE NO CARP LAUNCH IN KUWAIT PROMISE AS FOLGERS SUGGEST, TO PROVE ALL ITAP REQUEST IT SUBMITTED IN THE FOLLOWING 10 YEAR PERIOD WITHOUT REGARD TO THE MERIT OR REGULATION.
THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY YIELD A 20-YEAR BENEFIT.
FURTHER, THE 2010 CEA STATED THAT LED WOULD SUPPORT, AS YOU'VE ALREADY NOTED, AND LED AND THE BCI HAVE DONE THAT IN EVERY INSTANCE.
LOUISIANA HAS KEPT ALL OF ITS PROMISES.
THE CEA WAS MADE ON THE SM PROJECT TO RELOCATE TO THIS STATE.
THE CEA LISTED THE EXACT INVESTMENTS THAT WERE GOING TO GET ITEPS.
IN THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT, LOUISIANA LISTED THE EXACT SET OF INDUCEMENTS THAT IT WAS GOING TO PROVIDE.
LOUISIANA IN FACT, PROVIDED EVERY ONE OF THOSE INDUCEMENTS AND MET ALL OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CEA.
THESE APPLICATIONS ARE SEPARATE AND THEY WERE FILED POST 2018, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE SUBJECT TO LOCAL DISCRETION.
[01:45:06]
RECORDS AND LED LISTED THE ITEPS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE 2010 CEA AS 2010-09-17, 2010-09-178 AND 09-17B AND 2010-07-20 AND 07-20A, NONE OF WHICH ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY, THEY'VE ALL RECEIVED THEIR DUE TREATMENT.FINALLY, FOLGERS DOES NOT APPEAL THE ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF'S REJECTION OF THESE ITES, THE ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF DOESN'T HAVE GUIDELINES.
NOR DOES IT DISPUTE THAT 20% OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE SUBJECT TO THESE APPLICATIONS WERE TAXABLE IN ANY CASE.
NONETHELESS, FOLGERS HAS NOT PAID ANY TAX ON THESE PROJECTS, INCLUDING THE UNDISPUTED AMOUNTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE OWED THOUGH SOME FINALLY COMPLETED AS FAR BACK AS 2018 AND IT DELAYED BEING PLACED ON THE TAXABLE ROLES BY, I BELIEVE, FALSELY CERTIFYING THAT ITS PROPERTY WAS EXEMPTED AND OR THAT THESE ITES WERE PENDING WHEN IN FACT, THEY WERE DENIED LONG AGO AS THE STAFF OF LED TOLD FOLGERS.
AGAIN, FOLGERS CLAIMED, EVEN HERE TODAY THAT ITAP RULE 517, PRECLUDED IT FROM PAYING THESE UNDISPUTED AMOUNTS, LESS THEIR ITES BE AUTOMATICALLY DENIED, WHEN IN FACT, THE RULES WERE CHANGED UNDER THE 2018 REGULATORY REGIME.
RULE 517 SAYS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
FOLGER SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED AFTER WAITING TWO YEARS TO FILE WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A MIRRORLESS APPEAL.
WE HAVE ATTACHED SEVERAL DOCUMENTS TO OUR SUBMISSION TO YOU, INCLUDING THE CEA.
THERE'S AN EXHIBIT, FOR INSTANCE, THE CEA EXHIBIT C, AND FOLGERS PROVIDED TO YOU AS WELL.
THE CEA EXHIBIT C IS ENTITLED CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET FOR FOLGER PROJECT SM.
THE COVER LETTER THAT LED SENT SAID LOUISIANA IS PLEASED TO OFFER A COMPREHENSIVE INCENTIVE PACKAGE VALUED AT $52.67 MILLION FOR PROJECT SM FOR PHASE 1 AND 5.3 MILLION FOR PHASE 2, FOR FOLGERS KEY OPERATION CENTER FOR A TOTAL OF 57.9 MILLION.
THE CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET FOR PROJECT SM WAS 69 MILLION.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY ALREADY RECEIVED FOR THE $69 MILLION IN INVESTMENTS.
THE CEA HAS BEEN SATISFIED BY THIS DATE AND DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
IT DOES NOT OBLIGATE THIS BOARD AND FRANKLY DOES NOT OR IT CANNOT OVERRULE THE 2018 REGULATIONS THAT GIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT THE DISCRETION AND AUTHORITY TO DECIDE UP OR DOWN WHETHER THEY CAN AFFORD IT.
THEY DECIDED THAT THEY COULD NOT AFFORD THESE, PARTICULARLY AT THE VERY HEIGHT OF THE COVID PANDEMIC.
I THINK I'LL LET SOMEONE ELSE TALK ABOUT THE OTHER DOCUMENTS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> LET'S BE SURE WE SET THE TABLE HERE.
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT IS THERE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL ENACTED CRITERIA THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE STATE ITAP CRITERIA.
>> PURSUANT TO RULE 517, THEY WERE DIRECTED TO AND THEY DID IN FACT MAKE THEIR OWN GUIDELINES.
>> IT'S ACTUALLY RULE 503H2, AND WHAT IT SAYS IS MAKE BEST EFFORTS TO DEVELOP REASONABLE GUIDELINES. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> REALLY WE GET TO DEBATE WHAT REASONABLE MEANS.
IS THAT FAIR, WEATHER THESE CRITERIA THAT ARE MORE STRICT THAN THE STATE REGULATIONS, ARE THEY REASONABLE OR NOT? IN THAT REALLY THE DEBATE?
>> TO ME, IF THERE IS SOME FEELING THAT THEY'RE NOT REASONABLE, THEN YOU SHOULD BE WORKING WITH YOUR LOCAL PARTNER TO RESOLVE THESE DIFFERENCES,
[01:50:03]
NOT WITHDRAW THEIR ABILITY WITHOUT NOTICE.>> IT WOULD BE YOUR POSITION THEN THAT IF WE DID WORK WITH THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND THE SCHOOL BOARD TO TRY TO EDUCATE THEM ON WHY THE ORDINANCES WERE NOT GOOD, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE? IF WE HAD DONE THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE? > PRIOR TO YANKING THEIR LOCAL DISCRETION, I WOULD IMAGINE, YES.
>> IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY COME UP AND SAY, YEAH, WE DID IN FACT DO THAT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE CHECKED THAT BOX FOR YOU?
>> AGAIN, THE REGULATIONS DIDN'T CAUSE THE REJECTIONS [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE. WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
I KNOW I MOVE AT A SLOWER PACE THAN YOU DO BUT JUST LET ME GET THERE.
THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE CITY BOTH ADOPTED CRITERIA THAT ARE AT LEAST DIFFERENT FROM ITAP AND WE CAN ARGUE WHETHER THEY'RE REASONABLE GUIDELINES OR NOT.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS. IF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, FOR EXAMPLE BECAUSE OF ITS HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY, DECIDED TO ENACT AN ORDINANCE THAT SAID, WE ARE ONLY GOING TO GRANT ITAP MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS TO THOSE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES THAT EMPLOY FOSSIL FUELS AND NONE OTHER.
WOULD THAT BE A REASONABLE GUIDELINE?
>> IT'S NOT ONE THAT I WOULD POLITICALLY AGREE WITH, BUT I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY THAT.
>> I GUESS, YOUR POSITION THEN IS, ANY CRITERIA THAT ANY MUNICIPALITY PASSES MUST THEREFORE BE OKAY BECAUSE I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD AGREE THAT THAT IS A PRETTY OUT THERE CRITERIA.
>> WE MAY ARGUE WHERE THE LINES ARE, MR. WALTER, BUT THE QUESTION IS, ARE THERE LINES? IS THERE SOMETHING THAT'S UNREASONABLE? IS THERE SOMETHING THAT'S UNREASONABLE IN THE LINE?
>> WHAT EVERYBODY WOULD NORMALLY CONSIDER REASONABLE AND UNREASONABLE, I HAVE SUBJECTIVE LINES AND YOU HAVE SUBJECTIVE LINES.
WE ARE NOT THE ELECTED BODIES OF ORLEANS PARISH, WE'RE NOT THE ELECTED BODIES OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN REASONS AND THEIR OWN POLICIES.
NEW ORLEANS HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN, FOR INSTANCE, RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER THINGS THAT THEY DO ALL THE TIME.
I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO TELL YOU THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I CAN'T LET THE HOME RULE CHARTER COMMENT GO UNADDRESSED.
>> IT'S NOT YOUR NAME. EXCUSE ME, THIS IS YOUR SHOW.
YES, NEW ORLEANS HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER.
FRANKLY, THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS I ASKED WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME UP.
BUT THEN I REALIZED THAT THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY IS ALSO A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATED BODY WITH POWERS EQUAL TO, AT LEAST, IN JONES' OPINION, AS FAR AS ITEP IS CONCERNED, HIGH AND ABOVE ANY MUNICIPALITY, INCLUDING HOME RULE MUNICIPALITIES.
BECAUSE WE ARE SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION GRANTED THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE.
ONLY THIS BOARD AND THE GOVERNOR ARE EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE AS IT REFERS TO ITEP.
NOT THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, NOT THE CITY OF MAMOU.
ONLY THIS BOARD AND THE GOVERNOR AND SO WHEN THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS OR THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE OR THE VILLAGE OF MAMOU DECIDE TO PASS ITEP REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THIS BOARD HAS PASSED, THEY HAVE TO BE JUDGED BY THIS BOARD AS WHETHER THEY'RE REASONABLE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO AGREE IF SOMETHING IS REASONABLE, THERE MUST THEREFORE BE SOMETHING THAT IS UNREASONABLE.
WHAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE TODAY AS A BOARD, ARE THESE CRITERIA REASONABLE? JONES HAS AN OPINION, OBVIOUSLY, OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE AN OPINION, BUT WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE. NEXT QUESTION.
FIRST OF ALL, THE SCHOOL BOARD PASSED CRITERIA, THE CITY PASSED CRITERIA.
THE SHERIFF, WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER HE PASSED CRITERIA OR NOT.
>> WELL, DON'T KNOW. HE HAS A MEETING EVERY MORNING WHEN HE SHAVES.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON INSIDE THE SHERIFF'S MIND WHEN HE SIGNED THE LETTER, SO WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE HAS CRITERIA OR NOT. OR DO YOU?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HE DOES NOT.
>> I DON'T KNOW, I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO HIM. [OVERLAPPING]
>> OKAY. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SHERIFF'S [OVERLAPPING].
[01:55:02]
>> THE BOARD EXERCISED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRETION AND PROVIDED THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH THE RIGHT THAT IS INVOLVED HERE.
>> TO MAKE REASONABLE GUIDELINES.
>> AND WITH THE RIGHT OF REJECTION.
>> THEY HAVE THE RIGHT OF REJECTION.
WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT AS WELL.
FIRST OF ALL, THE SCHOOL BOARD RESOLUTIONS THEMSELVES, THEY DON'T MENTION WHETHER THE CRITERIA ARE SPECIFICALLY RELIED ON OR NOT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD BASICALLY SAYS, THESE ARE THE CRITERIA, THEY DON'T NEED THEM.
OH, BY THE WAY, WE ALSO NEED THE MONEY.
NOW, YOU MAY ARGUE IT THE OTHER WAY.
THEY MAY SAY, EXCUSE ME, WE NEED THE MONEY AND THEY DON'T MEET OUR CRITERIA.
THAT'S WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD SAYS, CORRECT, ESSENTIALLY? I CAN READ THEM INTO THE RECORD, BUT ESSENTIALLY THEY SAY, WE NEED THE MONEY AND WE'RE GOING TO REJECT THESE, BUT THEY ALSO DON'T NEED OUR CRITERIA.
>> OKAY. THE CITY, HOWEVER, IS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEVER.
THE CITY SAYS, WE NEED THE MONEY AND WE'RE GOING TO REJECT IT.
WE ALSO HAVE THESE CRITERIA AND WE OWN SOME OF THESE CONTRACTS, WE PASSED THE CRITERIA BEFORE THE APPLICATION WAS FILED, RIGHT?
>> THEREFORE, THE CRITERIA DON'T APPLY.
>> BUT ON TWO OF THOSE APPLICATIONS, FOUR OUT OF THE SIX, FOUR THEY SAID, THE APPLICATIONS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CRITERIA WERE PASSED.
BUT ON TWO OF THEM THEY SAY, NO, THE APPLICATION WERE FILED AFTER THE CRITERIA WAS PASSED AND WE DO APPLY THE CRITERIA.
NOW, IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND AS I READ THE ORDINANCE, AND THIS IS WHAT IS PARTICULARLY STRONG TO ME.
AS I READ THE ORDINANCE, I, LIKE YOU PROBABLY ARE DOING THIS ON A VOLUNTEER BASIS, BUT SOMETIMES GET TO WEAR MY LAWYER'S CAP AS WELL.
BUT AS I READ THE SHREVEPORT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE, THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS, AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE FROM SECTION 3 OF THE ORDINANCE.
"IF THE REQUEST FAILS TO SATISFY ALL OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION SHALL DISFAVOR AND REJECT THE APPLICATION." PERIOD. IT HAD NO OPTION BUT TO DENY THE CRITERIA IF THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AFTER THE APPLICATION.
NO OPTION AT ALL. IT HAS TO FOLLOW ITS OWN ORDINANCE. CAN'T IGNORE IT.
STICKING IN THE DICTUM, AFTER THE FACT THAT SAYS, OH, BY THE WAY, WE ALSO NEED THE MONEY, I DON'T THINK ERASES THE FACT THAT THE CRITERIA, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ITEP RULES, WAS THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION.
OH, BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU GO BACK AND READ THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT JUDGED EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SPEAK THE BULK OF THEIR TIME? NOT ON THE FACT THAT THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE MONEY, THEY SPENT THE BULK OF THEIR TIME JUDGING THEIR CRITERIA AND JUDGING, DO THEY MEET OUR CRITERIA? YES, NO, YES, NO, AND IN THEIR CONCLUSION, THEY SAY, THEY DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA, PERIOD.
THAT'S THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHEN THE SUBCOMMITTEE GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THEY'RE SAYING, CITY COUNCIL, THEY DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA.
TO COME IN AND SAY THAT THE BASIS FOR THE CITY'S DECISION WAS THAT WE NEED THE MONEY, I THINK IS DISINGENUOUS, NOT PERHAPS INTENTIONALLY, BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN ORDINANCE WITH CRITERIA THAT THEY APPLIED AND THEY APPLIED STRINGENTLY AND THEY SAID, YOU DON'T NEED IT.
I DON T THINK THEY COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING OTHER THAN DISAPPROVE.
>> YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOUR LOCAL PARTNER SOME OWNERSHIP OF ITS OWN DECISIONS.
YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE DECISION FOR THEM. PLEASE.
THIS IS NOT YOUR ROOM, MR. WALTER.
I'LL ALLOW YOU TO RESPOND, BUT I'M GOING TO TAKE YOUR CONTINGENTS AS THEY COME UP.
WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THEM.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,
[02:00:01]
THIS BOARD AND THE GOVERNOR GETS TO DECIDE WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.AGAIN, THIS IS JUST JONES TALKING, THIS ISN'T THE REST OF THE BOARD.
BUT IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, WHEN WE HAVE A STATE PROGRAM THAT HAS STATE CLEAR CRITERIA, AND IF A MUNICIPALITY WANTS TO IMPOSE A MORE STRINGENT CRITERIA THAN WHAT THIS BOARD HAS APPROVED, THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING, LISTEN, THAT STATE PROGRAM THAT YOU HAVE OVER THERE, WE WANT TO DO IT OUR WAY, AND THEY'RE BASICALLY GOING TO SUPPLANT THE STATE'S AUTHORITY WITH THEIR OWN.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS, MR. WALTER IS THAT IF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS GETS ITS WAY, THE CONTRACT NEVER EVEN MAKES IT TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
HE CAN'T DECIDE WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE BECAUSE THEY BASICALLY USURPED HIS POWER AND THIS BOARD'S POWER BY IMPOSING RULES THAT ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THIS BOARD IMPOSED.
NOW, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU IF THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, I NEED TO QUIT THIS BOARD, AND I NEED TO GO DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH MY VOLUNTEER TIME BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU WISH I DO, BUT I'M NOT DOING IT TODAY.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I WISH YOU DO.
>> I'M KIDDING. I'M PICKING AT YOU NOW.
WHEN THIS BOARD PASSED THE RESOLUTION TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, IF THAT DIDN'T TELL NEW ORLEANS THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THEIR PROCESS, THEY WEREN'T LISTENING BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THIS BOARD AND EXPRESS RESPONSE TO THE ORDINANCE THAT THE EAST BATON ROUGE AND THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS WAS PASSING AND SCHOOL BOARD WERE PASSING.
TO SAY THAT SOMEHOW THIS BOARD AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND LED HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED TO NEW ORLEANS.
I KNOW WHAT THEY CALL IT THE FREE STATE OF NEW ORLEANS, BUT THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON UP HERE IN BATON ROUGE AS WELL. THEY KNOW THAT.
TODAY THEY KNOW THEY'RE COLORING OUTSIDE THE LINES, BUT THEY'RE STILL CHOOSING TO DO SO.
THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE BUT THEY DO NOT GET TO USE UP THE PREROGATIVE OF THIS BOARD AND THE GOVERNOR TO MAKE A DECISION TO WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AS FAR AS THESE OUR TIP CONTRACT IS CONCERNED.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU ONE LAST COMMENT AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE YOU SERVED.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS BOARD HAS CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRETION, LIKE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, LIKE OTHER BODIES, IT EXERCISED THAT DISCRETION AND CREATED A LOCAL OPTION, I GUESS I'LL CALL IT.
IT DIRECTED THE GUIDELINES AND NEW ORLEANS AND EVERY ONE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES HAVE TOLD YOU THAT THEY HAVE AN INDEPENDENT BASIS THAT REGARDLESS OF THE GUIDELINES, THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.
IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, IT WOULD BE INADEQUATE REASON UNDER THIS BOARDS IN THIS BOARD'S JUDGMENT.
THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPROPER TO GRANT THESE.
>> LET ME TELL YOU WHAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE.
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA GOES AFTER A COMPANY AND THEY COMPETE WITH EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE COUNTRY THAT WANTED THAT COMPANY TO COME TO HIM AND THEY BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO MAKE SURE THAT COMPANY COMES HERE.
THAT COMPANY COMES AND THEY PERFORM WELL, THEY PAY THEIR TAXES, THEY EMPLOY PEOPLE, THEY BECOME ONE OF THE TOP FIVE TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY, AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOES THAT.
THEN WE REFUSE THE PROGRAM THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THAT COMPANY, AND WE SEND THAT MESSAGE TO EVERY OTHER COMPANY THAT WE MIGHT TRY TO RECRUIT TO THIS STATE AND SAY, LISTEN, WE HAVE THIS PROGRAM, BUT OH BY THE WAY WE ALLOW OUR MUNICIPALITIES TO REALLY RUN IT.
I KNOW THAT NEW ORLEANS IS HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH THEIR TAXES, AS IS EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IN THIS STATE.
IF THAT BECOMES THE BASIS ON WHICH WE MAKE DECISIONS, WE NEVER COMPETE FOR COMPANIES TO COME HERE.
I KNOW THAT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE WE OUGHT TO GET RID OF INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, LET COMPANIES LIVE OR DIE.
THAT MAY BE WHAT YOU WANT TO BUT THEN YOU BETTER LEARN TO BE A FARMER BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE MANY OTHER JOBS AVAILABLE TO YOU.
THE FACT IS THIS STATE HAS MADE THE DETERMINATION
[02:05:01]
SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE A MANUFACTURING STATE AND THAT IT'S SO IMPORTANT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE MANUFACTURERS THE MOST VALUABLE INCENTIVE THIS STATE HAS TO OFFER.WE'VE MADE THAT DECISION AS A MATTER OF POLICY AND IT'S ENSHRINED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
IF WE SOMEHOW THEN SAY, BUT MUNICIPALITIES, YOU GET TO DECIDE BY YOUR OWN SET OF RULES AND YOUR OWN SET OF GUIDELINES WHETHER YOU LIKE THIS COMPANY, LIKE GO INTO MALAFY AT EXAMPLE SAYING, WE JUST DON'T WANT YOU UNLESS YOU ARE A FOSSIL FUEL COMPANY.
IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW MUNICIPALITIES THAT DISCRETION THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL TURN THE WHOLE PROGRAM INTO A LOCAL PROGRAM AND JUST DO AWAY WITH LED, DO AWAY WITH THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND WE'LL JUST ALLOW LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES DO THEIR OWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LET THEM COMPETE WITH TEXAS AND MISSISSIPPI AND ALABAMA ON THEIR OWN.
>> FINANCIAL REASONS ARE NOT A GOOD REASON.
>> FINANCIAL IS A GOOD DECISION IF YOU DON'T HAVE CRITERIA.
IF YOU'VE ADOPTED CRITERIA THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THIS BOARD'S CRITERIA, NO.
THE FINANCIAL REASON IS NO LONGER THE REASON.
MR. WATSON, THAT ORDINANCE SAYS YOU SHALL DENY THE REQUEST IF YOU DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA, THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE.
>> THEY WERE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY AS THE INDEPENDENT BASIS.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CONVENIENCE ME.
>> THE MESSAGE THAT I THINK I WANT TO GO OUT IS THAT MUNICIPALITIES IN LOUISIANA OR SCHOOL BOARDS OR SHERIFFS OR PERISH BODIES IF YOU WANT TO DEVELOP YOUR OWN SET OF CRITERIA, LISTEN WE HAD A SITUATION HERE NOT TOO LONG AGO WHERE ONE OF OUR PARISHES WANTED TO NEGOTIATE THEIR OWN PILOT WITH ONE OF THE COMPANIES.
WE SAID, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S 80, 20.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE YOUR OWN PILOT UNDER THE ITEP PROGRAM.
YOU EITHER DENY THAT THE APPLICATION OR YOU TAKE 80, 20.
WE'VE BEEN 100% CONSISTENT WITH THIS.
THE MESSAGE THAT WE NEED TO SEND TO THE LOCAL GOVERNING ENTITIES AND LISTEN I'VE BEEN A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ALL MY ADULT CAREER.
I WAS CITY ATTORNEY FOR EIGHT YEARS.
I KNOW WHAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS AS WELL AS YOU DO.
BUT THIS PROGRAM IS NOT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU TELL A LOCAL GOVERNMENT YOU SHALL MAKE EFFORTS TO DEVELOP REASONABLE GUIDELINES AND THEN COME AND SAY, AND THE ONLY REASONABLE GUIDELINES ARE THE ONES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE.
>> YOU COULD HAVE ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT THE QJ REQUIREMENT.
WE HAVE A JOB REQUIREMENT IN OUR TIP THAT IS DEFINED.
NEW ORLEANS SAID, "NO, WE DON'T WANT THAT JOB REQUIREMENT, WE WANT THE JOB REQUIREMENT THAT'S ON STEROIDS.
WE ALREADY HAVE A PROGRAM IT'S CALLED QUALITY JOBS." THEY WANTED TO INCORPORATE THE QUALITY JOBS PROGRAM INTO OUR TIP.
IF YOU THINK THAT'S REASONABLE, THAT'S UNWORKABLE.
UNLESS ALL YOU WANT IS CUP MANUFACTURING JOBS AND FOR THIS PROGRAM IS VERY CLEARLY DEFINED AND NEW ORLEANS WAY BEYOND.
MR. LEONARD, I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH HIM.
MR. LEONARD'S POSITION ON THE APPLICATION PROCESS, THAT'S NOT WORKABLE.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS ITS ROLE IN THIS PROCESS.
THE GOVERNOR AND THIS BOARD HAS SEEN FIT TO DO THAT. THAT'S FINE.
BUT WHEN THEY START TO TRY TO SAY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT SMARTER THAN LED ABOUT THIS, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM A LITTLE TIGHTER WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT TOUGHER.
THAT'S WHERE THEY COLOR OUTSIDE THE LINES.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THESE CRITERIA IN THIS SITUATION.
MR. WATSON, I THINK YOU AND I ARE DONE.
HOW ABOUT MRS. HANSEN? [NOISE] MRS. HANSEN I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THOSE POINTS NOT ALREADY MADE BY MR. WATSON.
>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS AARON HANSEN.
I'M RESIDENT OF ORLEANS PARISH, IN HERE REPRESENTING TOGETHER LOUISIANA.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND APOLOGIES FOR THE LATE DELIVERY OF THE PACKET.
[02:10:02]
I WANT TO JUST DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO A FEW ITEMS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN LIFTED UP FROM THE PACKET.AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, MR. HOLLEY, ABOUT THE TOTAL TAX BENEFIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT IN 2010.
THE TAX BENEFIT WAS FOR 17.8 MILLION AND THAT COVERED FIVE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM APPLICATIONS THAT MR. WALTER DELINEATED.
IN FACT, BETWEEN 2010 AND 2016, THIS BOARD APPROVED 21 APPLICATIONS AND THAT COVERED $22.3 MILLION WORTH OF INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY.
SO JUST TO UNDERSCORE SECRETARY PEARSON'S POINT, THE STATE FULFILLED AND IN FACT, EXCEEDED ITS OBLIGATIONS TO THE COMPANY ACCORDING TO THE 2010 COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT.
FINALLY, JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO THE RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THIS BOARD IN 2020.
THE FEBRUARY 2020 RESOLUTION THAT STATES THAT LED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH LOCAL INTERESTS TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCESS AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE EXEMPTION ESTABLISHED BY THIS BOARD.
TO LIFT UP THAT, IT SEEMS THAT THE ARGUMENT IS BEING MADE THAT THIS RESOLUTION ON ITS OWN WAS SUFFICIENT TO NOTIFY ORLEANS PARISH GOVERNING BODIES THAT THEIR RESOLUTION WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD TO APPROVE OR DENY EXEMPTIONS.
MY BELIEF IS THAT IT'S NOT A SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION TO ORLEANS PARISH THAT THEIR RULES ARE OUT OF LINE OR THAT THEY SHOULD BE ADJUSTED.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ORLEANS PARISH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT RECEIVED NOTICE FROM THE STATE THAT THEIR GUIDELINES ARE OUT OF LINE OR HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO.
>> HAVE YOU EVER ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION?
>> SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION FROM LED OR NOT ABOUT THEIR ORDINANCES.
>> WE HAVE BEEN IN CLOSE COMMUNICATION WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES AND.
>> BUT DID YOU ASK THE QUESTION?
>> DID ANYBODY YOU KNOW ASK THE QUESTION?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. [LAUGHTER]
>> MS. HANSEN, BECAUSE THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS YOU'RE MAKING ALLEGATIONS THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN WHEN YOU DIDN'T EVEN ASK TO SEE WHETHER IT HAPPENED.
>> WE DID SUBMIT A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST RELATED TO ALL THE COMMUNICATION AROUND FOLGERS FROM LED AND THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE RECORD ABOUT THAT COMMUNICATION.
>> WELL, YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S TELEPHONE CALLS, THAT THERE'S PUBLIC MEETING OR PRIVATE MEETINGS.
THERE'S HOT CUPS OF COFFEE, THERE'S ALL WAYS TO COMMUNICATE THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST.
>> MAY I ASK SECRETARY PEARSON?
>> NO. YOU MAY NOT WE'LL HAVE INFORMATION COMING TO YOU, BUT WE DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD.
YOU'RE ENTITLED TO MAKE COMMENTS AND TO LISTEN, BUT YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO ASK QUESTIONS.
THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT IS IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS WAS TASKED WITH AGAIN, THE WORD REASONABLE IS AN IMPORTANT ONE AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT WITH YOU.
BUT THE REALITY IS, IS THAT LED DID TRY TO COMMUNICATE WITH NEW ORLEANS.
NEW ORLEANS CHOSE TO IGNORE THOSE COMMUNICATIONS AND I'LL HAVE SOMEBODY TELL YOU ALL ABOUT THAT IN A FEW MINUTES, BUT I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR NOW. CONTINUE YOUR POINTS.
>> JUST THE LAST POINT THAT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT AN APPEAL UNDER THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED IN 2020 BY THIS BOARD, ALLOW THE COMPANY THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL A LOCAL DECISION AND THAT DOESN'T CONSTITUTE THE RIGHT TO AN APPROVAL OF AN EXEMPTION REQUEST SO NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE LOCAL RULES AND THE RULES OF THIS BOARD, FOLGER IS NOT ENTITLED BY FACT OF THAT CONFLICT ALONE TO AN APPROVAL OF ITS REQUEST.
IT'S JUST ENTITLED TO THE APPEAL AND SO WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY IS WHETHER THAT APPEAL GIVEN WHAT WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT THE INVESTMENTS AND WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T FALL INTO THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT AND BEYOND ARE LEGITIMATE.
[02:15:01]
>> IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT FOLGERS HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL, THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO WIN THE APPEAL I AGREE WITH THAT.
WE STILL GET TO DETERMINE THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT 100%. ANYTHING ELSE? I HAVE A CARD FROM MS. MARIANNE. YES. THANK YOU.
I'M NOT READING THEM, WRITING VERY WELL.
YES, JUST PULL THE MIC A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOU, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS MARIANNE MACHAD.
I'M A RESIDENT OF ORLEANS PARISH.
I'M A MEMBER OF TOGETHER NEW ORLEANS, TOGETHER LOUISIANA.
BUT I'M HERE AS A TAXPAYER AND THE MOTHER OF TWO SONS WHO ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE COMING BACK BECAUSE THE JOBS THAT THEY ARE WELL-QUALIFIED FOR DON'T EXIST HERE.
ONE OF THE REASONS I BELIEVE THAT THEY DON'T EXIST HERE IS THAT YOU ALL GIVE THESE TAX EXEMPTIONS THAT IMPOVERISH OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, OUR STREETS, OUR HEALTH CLINICS, AND OUR SHERIFF AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
WE ARE THE LAST OR THE BOTTOM THREE IN PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND QUALITY OF LIFE AND STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT IS WHAT BRINGS QUALITY INDUSTRIES, AND NO OFFENSE TO FOLGERS IN THAT.
Y'ALL ARE SOCKED TALKING ABOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE STABLE ISN'T THAT TO ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF ITS CITIZENS AND NOT ITS CORPORATE CITIZENS ONLY, BUT ITS PEOPLE.
HOW CAN YOU-ALL LOOK AT YOURSELVES IN THE MIRROR?
>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE SUBSTITUTE TO SAY?
>> I THINK THAT WAS SUBSTANTIVE.
>> OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU'RE LIVID [OVERLAPPING] IT WAS SUBSTANTIVE.
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR HOW LIVID YOU ARE.
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHETHER I SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK MYSELF IN THE MIRROR OR NOT.
UP TO THAT POINT YOU DID FINE.
IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH YOUR SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS, YOU MAY DO SO.
LEGISLATIVE BODY HAS DECRIED THE POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING TEACHER PAY.
IF OUR CORPORATE CITIZENS PAID THEIR TAXES THE MONEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ENHANCE OUR EDUCATION THAT WILL CREATE THE WORKFORCE OF THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE.
>> ACTUALLY, NO, I'M NOT GOING TO LET THAT GO.
YOU EVER BEEN TO MOREHOUSE PARISH? YOU KNOW WHERE MOREHOUSE PARISH IS.
>> IT'S IN THE NORTHEAST PART OF THE STATE.
>> I HAVE BEEN TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE STATE
>> YOU'VE NOT BEEN TO MOREHOUSE PARISH BECAUSE NOT MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TO MOREHOUSE PARISH.
[OVERLAPPING] NO, IT'S NOT MONROE, THAT'S WASHINGTON PARISH.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE CORPORATIONS TO PAY THEIR TAXES, YOU DON'T HAVE GOOD SCHOOLS.
WE HAD A PROJECT BEFORE US AND WHEN WE WERE DOING THE WORK THAT YOU FIND SO DISDAINFUL.
WHEN WE HAD A PROJECT BEFORE US IN MOREHOUSE PARISH, THAT WAS A SOLAR FARM.
A SOLAR FARM CREATES ONE JOB AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FIGURE OUT, OKAY, ARE WE GOING TO GRANT THAT OR NOT, AND IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING TO ME BECAUSE THERE WAS A PROBLEM HERE.
WE WANT RENEWABLES, BUT YET IT ONLY CREATES ONE JOB, IS SOLAR REALLY MANUFACTURING ELECTRICITY? ALL THAT DEBATE.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, MOREHOUSE PARISH WAS REALLY INTERESTED IN.
THE VERY FACT THAT, THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND, THAT WAS FORMERLY FALLOW AGRICULTURAL LAND BY BEING CONVERTED FROM AN AGRICULTURAL TAX BASIS TO AN INDUSTRIAL TAX BASIS, INCREASE THEIR TAX REVENUES BY ALMOST 40% AND THEY WANTED THIS PROGRAM, THEY WANTED THAT THING TO BE APPROVED BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH A POOR PARISH, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CORPORATIONS TO PAY TAXES BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ATTRACT ANY CORPORATIONS TO MOREHOUSE, SO THEY WANTED A SOLAR FARM JUST SO IT WOULD INCREASE THEIR TAX BASE.
WHEN YOU DECRY CORPORATIONS NOT PAYING THEIR TAXES, YOU'VE GOT TO FIRST HAVE CORPORATIONS IN THOSE PARISHES IN ORDER TO PAY TAXES, AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, CORPORATIONS GET TO CHOOSE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO LOCATE.
THEY GET TO CHOOSE WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE AT LOUISIANA, TEXAS, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, OR ANYWHERE ELSE THEY WANT TO GO.
AS A RESULT, THIS DEPARTMENT WAGS ITS TAIL OFF TRYING TO RECRUIT THOSE BUSINESSES.
[02:20:05]
BUT IN ORDER TO GET THEM HERE, THEY HAVE TO MAKE THIS PLACE MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN OTHER PLACES.YES, THEY LIKE QUALITY OF LIFE.
DO THEY WANT TO GO WHERE THERE'S CRIME? NO, THEY REALLY DON'T.
SO YOU NEED TO CLEAN UP YOUR CRIME IN NEW ORLEANS TOO, BY THE WAY, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT IF YOU WANT TO.
BUT TO COME IN AND SAY THIS PROGRAM IS SOMEHOW DOING SOMETHING TO KEEP NEW ORLEANS FROM REACHING ITS GOALS.
THIS PROGRAM IS WHAT IS PUTTING CORPORATIONS IN ORLEANS PARISH, SO THAT YOU MAY REACH YOUR GOALS.
INSTEAD OF FIGHTING CORPORATIONS, YOU NEED TO BE WORKING TO ATTRACT CORPORATIONS.
>> I'M NOT FIGHTING CORPORATIONS, I JUST WANT THEM.
>> TO PAY THEIR TAXES, I GET THAT.
BUT WE HAVE PROGRAMS THAT SAY IF YOU'LL COME TO LOUISIANA, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THEM ALL THE TIME.
YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM FOR A PERIOD.
YOU GET AN ABATEMENT WHILE YOU'RE GETTING YOUR COMPANY GOING AND THEN WHEN YOU GET THIS EQUIPMENT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY IT.
BUT FOLGERS HAS MOVED FROM BEING OUT OF THE TOP 10 TO BECOME ONE OF THE TOP FOUR TAXPAYERS IN ALL OF NEW ORLEANS, AND YOU COME HERE AND YOU WANT TO CRITICIZE THIS PROGRAM ON FOLGERS WHICH HAS DONE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE ASKED THEM TO DO.
THEY'VE CREATED MORE JOBS THAN THEY PROMISED, THEY'VE CREATED HIGHER PAYROLL THAN THEY PROMISED.
YOUR CHILDREN DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE LOUISIANA, THEY COME TO WORK FOR FOLGERS.
WHAT? YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO WORK FOR FOLGERS.
>> MY SON WORKS FOR GENERAL MOTORS IN DETROIT DOING THESE EMBEDDING COMPUTER SYSTEMS IN CARS.
>> HE COULD HAVE GONE TO WORK FOR GENERAL MOTORS IN SHREVEPORT WHEN GENERAL MOTORS WAS THERE UNTIL IT WAS SHUT DOWN BECAUSE OF 2008 ELECTIONS.
BUT NEVERTHELESS. MA'AM, I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO LET PEOPLE SIT AT THAT TABLE AND MAKE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THIS PROGRAM AND THIS BOARD OF VOLUNTEERS WHO'RE WAGGING THEIR TAILS OFF TO TRY TO BRING COMPANIES TO THIS STATE AND DECRY US FOR DOING WHAT WE BELIEVE IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
>> ISN'T IT MY RIGHT TO JUST COME HERE AND SAY I DISAGREE?
>> YOU CAN, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SAY THE THINGS YOU'RE SAYING TO THIS BOARD.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LOOK AT OURSELVES IN THE MIRROR.
>> I WAS VERY UPSET AT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?
>> I'M JUST ASKING YOU AS A TAXPAYER AND MYSELF TO RECONSIDER BECAUSE AS A TAXPAYER, I JUST FEEL LIKE I'M LEFT OUT OF THIS EQUATION.
I DO, I DON'T GET A TAX EXEMPTION OF 80% OF MY TAXES.
>> ACTUALLY, YOU GET A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IF YOU OWN A HOME, $75,000.
>> THAT'S PRETTY BIG DEAL IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.
THANK YOU, MA'AM. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.
MR. BAGGER, I'M SORRY. MR. NASSER
>> I KNEW WHEN I WALKED IN THIS MORNING, THIS WAS GOING TO BE THIS TYPE OF MEETING WHICH IS GOOD THAT EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SAY WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
I CAN LOOK AT MYSELF IN THE MIRROR EVERY DAY.
I MIGHT NOT LIKE WHAT I SEE BECAUSE OF MY AGE, BUT I CAN LOOK MYSELF IN THE MIRROR.
I'M SAYING JAMES PARISH, WHERE I'M FROM, INDUSTRY PAYS 70-80% OF THE AD VALOREM TAXES.
ONE OF OUR LOCAL INDUSTRIES SHUT DOWN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND WE FELT IT BAD.
I'VE BEEN ON A SCHOOL BOARD FOR 28 YEARS, I JUST RETIRED AT THE END OF DECEMBER 2022.
WE HAD TO LAY OFF 30 PEOPLE WHEN ONE COMPANY SHUT DOWN.
BUT LET'S STOP AND THINK ABOUT NOT ONLY THE AD VALOREM TAXES THAT THEY DO PAY.
OF COURSE, THROUGH THE PROGRAM THAT THE STATE OFFERS, WHAT ABOUT THE SALES AND USE TAX? SALES AND USE TAX ON A ONE BILLION DOLLAR CONSTRUCTION OR ONE BILLION DOLLAR FACILITY.
LET'S JUST SAY A LOCAL ENTITY COLLECTS TWO AND A HALF PERCENT OF THE SALES AND
[02:25:01]
USE TAX ON THAT ONE BILLION DOLLAR FACILITY HOW MUCH MONEY THAT IS? I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT.IS THIS CONTROVERSIAL? OF COURSE, IT IS.
HAS FOLGERS DONE AS MUCH AND MORE THAN WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD? YES, THEY DID. DO I BELIEVE IN LOCAL AUTONOMY AS OUR PARISH PRESIDENT SAID EARLIER? I BELIEVE IN LOCAL AUTONOMY, I REALLY DO.
BUT WE HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT EVERYTHING WHEN WE MAKE A DECISION.
NOW, IF THE CRITERIA WAS USED TO DENY THE APPLICATION, TO DENY THE EXEMPTION, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY THAN JUST DENYING IT STRAIGHT OUT BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE 80, 20 AFTER THE 2018 EXECUTIVE ORDER.
I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND ARGUE BACK AND FORTH WHICH SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
BUT I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO REALIZE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS PAID WHEN AN INDUSTRY LOCATES IN A PARISH, IN A COMMUNITY.
THE SALES AND USE TAX NOT ONLY ON WHAT'S THE MATERIAL THAT'S BEING USED TO BUILD IT, BUT OVER OCCURRING SALES AND USE TAX AFTER THIS COMPANY GOES INTO OPERATION.
>> THANK YOU, MR. NASSER. WE HAVE CARVED MR. BRODERICK BAGGER.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION, PLEASE.
>> STILL GOOD MORNING. FOR ANOTHER THREE MINUTES.
MY NAME IS BRODERICK BAGGER WITH TOGETHER NEW ORLEANS AND TOGETHER LOUISIANA.
WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR A WHILE.
I MAY SAY EARLY ON, WHEN YOU DON'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT, YOU CAN SOMETIMES HAVE A TOO NARROW AND PREJUDICIAL VIEW OF THE PEOPLE WITH WHOM YOU'RE WORKING WHO DON'T GIVE YOU EVERYTHING WE WANT.
WHEN THE ORIGINAL REFORMS WERE MADE, THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T REACH BACK AND APPLY TO ALL THE EXISTING CONTRACTS, WHAT A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T APPLY TO THE RENEWALS, WE THOUGHT THAT WAS THE WRONG DECISION, DIDN'T LIKE IT.
MIGHT'VE EVEN FALLEN INTO THE TENDENCY OR TEMPTATION TO SAY, THOSE SO AND SO JUST WANT TO GIVE AWAY THE FARM.
MAY HAVE EVEN ON ONE INSTANCE THAT I CAN THINK OF FOR MY CASE PERSONALLY, ATTRIBUTED THAT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE STAFF, NOT JUST THE BOARD.
THEN YOU GO THROUGH MEETINGS AND SEE HOW PEOPLE ARE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
MY TAKEAWAY FROM ALL OF THAT IS PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARD FOR THIS DEPARTMENT AND THEY ARE TRYING TO BE FAIR WHEN THEY'RE BALANCING INTERESTS, THE INTERESTS OF LOCAL ENTITIES, THE INTEREST ACCOMPANIES, THE INTERESTS OF TAXPAYERS.
THAT IN PARTICULAR WHEN IT COMES TO THE STAFF BUT ALL OF YOU AS WELL, PEOPLE ARE DOING THEIR BEST.
THE WAY THAT THE LOCAL OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HAD BEEN DESCRIBED IN THIS MEETING IS NOT ACCURATE OR FAIR.
I SAY THAT BECAUSE I WAS THERE FOR MOST OF THE MEETINGS.
THEY GOT A SET OF RULES FROM YOU THAT SAID DEVELOP GUIDELINES.
IT SAID, WITHIN 60 DAYS THE PROMULGATION OF THESE RULES, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES FOR EACH PARISH SHALL MAKE BEST EFFORTS TO DEVELOP REASONABLE GUIDELINES.
THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS OF DELIBERATION ABOUT THAT, IN WHICH MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD, MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WE'RE BALANCING.
WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE A SINGLE COMPANY.
WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE A SINGLE JOB.
WE DO NOT WANT TO DISINCENTIVIZE ANYTHING.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO RUN A FILE OF THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WHICH HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY THAT IT HAS IN A SPECIFIC WAY EXTENDED TO INCLUDE OUR INPUT.
ALL OF THOSE LOCAL OFFICIALS WITH CITIZENS TAKING PART WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND DID THEIR VERY BEST.
THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, A RESOLUTION WAS PASSED THAT SAID, IF YOUR STANDARDS CONFLICT WITH THE LOCAL GUIDELINES, THEN THERE'S THIS RIGHT FOR AN APPEAL TO BE HEARD.
YOU SAID THAT THAT WAS IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE NEW ORLEANS GUIDELINES AS THOUGH THAT WAS ENTIRELY CLEAR.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT WAS NOT CLEAR, AT LEAST TO US. WE DID ASK.
I TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO SAY YOU INFORM THEM THAT THEIR GUIDELINES WERE OUT OF STEP.
[02:30:02]
I DON'T DENY THAT.ONE THAT RESOLUTION WAS PASSED, WHICH FELT LIKE, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD TO KNOW BEFOREHAND.
WHAT DOES CONFLICT MEAN? THIS CONFLICT MEANS DIFFERENT FROM? IF SO, WHY DIRECT THEM TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES IF THEY'RE NOT MEANT TO BE DIFFERENT FROM? THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT IT BEING MORE STRINGENT WAS A PROBLEM UNTIL SUBSEQUENTLY.
THEN WE GO BACK AND SAY, NOW THE BOARD OF COMMERCE INDUSTRY HAS DONE THIS, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? I THINK THEY'RE IN A FIX.
THEY'VE HAD HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THROUGH DOZENS OF MEETINGS DELIBERATE ABOUT WHAT OUR STANDARDS OUGHT TO BE AND CAME OUT WHERE THEY CAME OUT.
THEIR DECISION WAS, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS, AT THE TIME ANYWAY THEY HAD NOT GOTTEN ANY CLEAR DIRECTIVE THAT THESE WERE CONFLICTING WITH THE STATE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OR THAT THEY HAD THEREBY SELF-REVOKED THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE THAT LOCAL DISCRETION.
IF THAT COMMUNICATION WAS SENT, THEN I'M GOING TO GO GET REAL MAD AT OUR LOCAL OFFICIALS WERE NOT COMMUNICATING THAT TO US.
I MEAN, IF THEY WERE INFORMED THAT THEIR LOCAL AUTHORITY TO SAY YAY OR NAY HAS BEEN REVOKED BECAUSE OF THEIR STANDARDS THEN YOU'RE RIGHT.
THEY CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE CHANGED THEIR ACTIONS.
THAT SAID, THE IDEA THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO THUMB THEIR NOSE AT YOU OR DO THEIR OWN THING, THAT'S A STORY WE'VE GOT ABOUT NEW ORLEANS.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE CALL IT A MEME.
IT'S LIKE, WE KNOW THAT ABOUT NEW ORLEANS JUST DOING THAT.
THAT WAS NOT THE SPIRIT OR INTENT OF ANY OF THE LOCAL OFFICIALS OR CITIZENS WHO TOOK PART IN THE PROCESS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SHOULD OUR GUIDELINES BE? WE WERE TRYING TO DO WHAT YOU DIRECTED US TO DO.
THERE ARE COMMUNICATIONS IN THESE RIMS OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE GOT OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS COMMUNICATING WITH YOUR STAFF AND SAYING, THESE FOLGERS EXEMPTIONS PASSED.
NOT IN A TRICKY WAY, BUT SAYING WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT FOUR OF THESE THAT CAME IN BEFORE OUR GUIDELINES WERE ESTABLISHED DO NOT APPLY TO OUR LOCAL GUIDELINES.
THOSE WILL BE DEVELOPED OR DECIDED ON INDEPENDENT OF ALL THAT.
THEN THAT IS REFLECTED IN THEIR RESOLUTIONS.
THEY MADE THAT DETERMINATION BECAUSE IT SEEMED RIGHT.
THEN THEY INCLUDED LANGUAGE ON THE OTHER TWO TO SAY, LOOK WITH THIS RESOLUTION, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THINGS ARE, LET US BE CLEAR THAT EVEN THE ONES THAT WERE THE GUIDELINES DID APPLY, THAT WAS NOT THOSE THAT DID IT, IT WAS THAT WE NEEDED THE MONEY.
I UNDERSTAND THE PLACE THAT THAT PUTS YOU IN.
BUT THIS WAS ATTEMPTING TO BALANCE, IN THEIR CASE, THE PARTICIPATION INVOLVEMENT OF LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF CITIZENS AND DOZENS AND DOZENS OF HOURS OF LOCAL OFFICIALS TO ARRIVE AT SOMETHING.
THEN A SUBSEQUENT DECISION TO PUT THAT INTO QUESTION, THEIR ATTEMPT TO BALANCE THAT.
IF FOLGERS HAD ACTED ON THEIR EXEMPTION REQUESTS IN A TIMELY WAY AND NOT HAD THOSE APPLICATIONS INTENTIONALLY DELAYED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED BEFORE THE LOCAL GUIDELINES AND BEFORE ANY RIGHT TO APPEAL, AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE.
INSTEAD, THEY ASKED FOR DELAYS, RECEIVED DELAYS, GOT CONSIDERATION AFTER LOCAL GUIDELINES HAVE COME INTO EFFECT AND A CITY THAT SAYS, WE WANT TO BE CLEAR, EVEN IN AN INTERNAL EMAIL TO YOUR STAFF, IN A PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, THOSE LOCAL GUIDELINES WERE NOT GOING TO BE THE REASON THAT THEY WERE DECIDED.
THAT I WOULD JUST SAY THE SPIRIT WITH WHICH YOU HAVE CHARACTERIZED MR. JONES, THE ACTIONS AND INTENT OF OUR LOCAL OFFICIALS IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY HAS NOT BEEN ACCURATE, HAS NOT BEEN FAIR.
THE SPIRIT WITH WHICH YOU'VE INTERROGATED SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE BEFORE YOU MAY BE FAIRLY IN SOME CASE BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS SAID.
BUT EVEN BEFORE THEN DOES NOT SEEM LIKE IT CAPTURES THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT WE UNDERSTAND.
SOMETIMES IT'S MOVING AROUND TO BE THE INTENT OF THIS BOARD.
THIS BOARD SAID DEVELOP LOCAL GUIDELINES, WE DID.
THEN IT SAID, IF THERE ARE PROBLEM, THEN THERE'S A RIGHT TO APPEAL.
THEN WE SAID, FINE, THE GUIDELINES DID NOT APPLY, IT WAS BEFORE THAT AND YET THE CHARACTERIZATION HAS BEEN, LOOK, THERE GOES NEW ORLEANS AGAIN, QUESTIONING OUR AUTHORITY, DOING ITS OWN THING,
[02:35:01]
TRYING TO DANCE TO THE BEAT OF ITS OWN DRUM.I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE FOR THE CITY AT LARGE.
IT'S NOT THE CASE THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IT'S NOT BEEN THEIR INTENT, IT'S NOT BEEN OUR INTENT.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO IN THE SPIRIT OF PUBLIC CITIZENSHIP WHAT YOU ASKED US TO DO. THANK YOU.
I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU.
I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY WAS TRYING TO BE NEFARIOUS.
IF I'VE IMPLIED THAT, THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT.
I APOLOGIZE FOR IT IF THAT'S THE PERCEPTION THAT I CONVEYED BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO CONVEY IS THAT THIS PROGRAM IS NOT A MUNICIPAL PROGRAM, IT'S NOT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, AND THAT THE RULES IN THIS SITUATION MADE IT MORE THAN WHAT THIS.
THAT'S MY PROBLEM, IS THAT THEY WENT TOO FAR.
FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW THAT WHEN WE WERE DEVELOPING THE RULES, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SETTINGS, I REMEMBER I WAS SITTING RIGHT OVER THERE IN ONE OF OUR MEETINGS.
I WAS SAYING THAT WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IS THIS.
I USED ST. JAMES PARISH AS AN EXAMPLE.
BECAUSE BACK PRE-EXECUTIVE ORDER, WHEN YOU WENT TO THE ST. JAMES PARISH IF YOU'RE AN INDUSTRY TRYING TO DO A PROJECT, YOU WENT TO ST. JAMES PARISH, THE PARISH COUNCIL WOULDN'T MEET WITH YOU WITHOUT THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE SHERIFF, AND THE TAX ASSESSOR BE IN THERE.
THEY SET UP THEIR OWN PROCESS, HOW THEY WERE GOING TO EVALUATE OUR PROJECTS.
BECAUSE THEY HAD HAD A BAD EXPERIENCE YEARS AGO, THEY MADE SURE THAT THEIR LOCAL ENTITIES WORKED IN CONCERT WITH ONE ANOTHER SO THAT IT WAS ALL.
THAT WAS THE CONCEPT IS THAT YOU SET UP LOCAL GUIDELINES SO THAT WHEN A COMPANY COMES TO YOU, FRANKLY, AGAIN, JUST JONES WHEN I WAS SITTING RIGHT OVER THERE AND VOTED FOR THIS, THAT THE LANGUAGE AND THE RULE, WHAT I WAS HOPING FOR WAS A STREAMLINED PROCESS SO THAT COMPANIES WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO 14,000 MEETINGS TRYING TO GET SOMETHING APPROVED THAT THERE WOULD BE A VERY CONCISE WAY OF WRITING WITH THEM.
>> YOU KNOW WHERE YOU STAND PREDICTABILITY.
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING THIS STUFF, WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND ALL OF OUR TIME, IT'S NOT GREAT EITHER ON THIS SIDE.
THAT WAS EXACTLY THE INTENT, CLARITY, PREDICTABILITY.
>> ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IN MY WORLD AT LEAST THEY REACH TOO FAR BY CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAM.
THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO COMMUNICATE.
[OVERLAPPING] IF I COMMUNICATED ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY, I APOLOGIZE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT PERSPECTIVE.
IT'S A FULL JUST PEN I JUST REALIZED.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME TO WRITE WITH IT, I'M SURE.
>> ONE OF OUR BEST VOLUNTEERS IN A CHURCH IN NEW ORLEANS EAST IS A FOLGERS EMPLOYEE.
OUR MEMBER INSTITUTIONS ARE FILLED WITH FOLDERS EMPLOYEES.
THE IDEA THAT WE WANT OR CAN EVEN SUSTAIN AN ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS ANOTHER IMPRESSION THAT I WOULD SAY IS ENTIRELY FALSE.
IT IS MUCH EASIER TO SUSTAIN HEALTHY, GOOD, POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS WHEN THINGS ARE CLEAR AND THEY STOPPED SHIFTING AROUND.
WHEN A COMPANY MAKES AN INVESTMENT THE NEXT YEAR IT GOES ON THE TAX ROLLS UNLESS THEY HAVE AN EXEMPTION.
THEN SUDDENLY YOU HAVE ONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN EXEMPTION.
THEY HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR AN EXEMPTION.
YOU'RE LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON? BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST ONES.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT SAYS THE INTENT TO APPLY FOR AN EXEMPTION GRANTS YOU A DE FACTO EXEMPTION THAT YOU CAN ACT ON INFORMALLY.
BECAUSE WHAT DO YOU SAY? IF YOU SAY THAT'S WRONG, THAT'S NOT ACCORDING TO THE LAW THEY SHOULD VENUE AGAINST THE COMPANY? I GUESS SO. ARE WE? NO, WE'RE NOT. THE BREAKDOWN OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS AS THEY EXIST, WHEN YOU START TO HAVE ONE SET OF RULES FOR ONE GROUP AND ANOTHER SET OF RULES FOR SOMEBODY ELSE IT CREATES THE IMPRESSION OF CONTESTATION AND CONFLICT WHEN IT DOESN'T EXIST.
I'LL JUST SAY THIS. I'VE NEVER HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT A SINGLE COMPANY THE WAY YOU TALKED ABOUT LOCAL OFFICIALS TODAY.
I'VE NEVER HEARD YOU TALK TO A SINGLE COMPANY. EVEN AIRING.
>> I WAS HERE THE WHOLE MORNING.
>> NO. YOU WEREN'T HERE ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO.
THERE WAS SOMEBODY SITTING RIGHT IN THAT CHAIR THAT HEARD PRETTY STRONG MESSAGE.
>> EVEN AIRING. TYPICALLY, THERE'S AN ATTEMPT TO BE CONSIDERATE AND FAIR.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IF THE PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY THAT THIS BOARD HAS USED, WHICH IS TO SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE RULES,
[02:40:02]
AND THEN HOLD ONE OF THE BODIES THAT'S SEEKING A DECISION ACCOUNTABLE FOR RULES THAT WERE NOT IN PLACE AT THE TIME THEIR DECISIONS WERE MADE.IF YOU FOLLOW THAT SAME PROCEDURE, THEN YOU'LL REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THOSE EXEMPTIONS, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT WERE BEFORE RULES WERE APPLIED AND THE RULEMAKING PROCESS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, AT YOUR DISCRETION, AT YOUR INSTRUCTION, THOSE SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE LOCAL ENTITIES.
IF YOU TREATED LOCAL ENTITIES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES THE WAY YOU TREAT COMPANIES, WE DON T THINK YOU'LL GRANT THESE APPEALS.
WE UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY AND THE GOVERNOR SAY, AT THE END OF THE DAY, CONSTITUTIONALLY, THIS IS YOUR AUTHORITY, FINANCIALLY, THIS IS LOCAL MONEY.
LOCAL DECISION-MAKERS KNOW BETTER.
IF THEY DON'T, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS ABOUT THEIR LOCAL TAX BASE.
THAT'S WHAT WE UNDERSTAND TO BE THE INTENT, THE SPIRIT, THE GOAL OF THE REFORMS. IT WILL BE A DEPARTURE FROM THAT PRACTICE.
THAT GOAL IS IF YOU GRANT THIS APPEAL. WE HOPE YOU DON'T.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION.
MS. PORTER, WOULD YOU COME UP, PLEASE? [LAUGHTER]
>> STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR POSITION WITH THE DEPARTMENT, PLEASE.
>> ROBIN POTTER, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL LED.
>> I UNDERSTAND THERE'S BEEN MUCH DEBATE AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN LED AND THE MUNICIPALITIES AND THE SCHOOL BOARD CONCERNING THE RULES THAT THE CRITERIA THAT THEY DEVELOP.
WOULD YOU EDUCATE US ON THAT A LITTLE BIT?
>> YES. AS OF THE END OF 2019, STAFF MET WITH COUNCILWOMAN MORENO OR COUNCILMAN MORENO.
AT THAT TIME THAT VISIT WAS TWO TALK TO AND CONVINCE HER TO CHANGE THE LOCAL RULE.
WE'D BEEN MADE AWARE THAT THE RULES THAT WERE OR THE ORDINANCE IS THAT WERE APPROVED THEY WERE IN CONFLICTS.
THE SECOND PROBABLY MORE TOWARDS EARLY 2020.
STAFF MET WITH THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS ECONOMIC STAFF.
THAT'S A TRACY JACKSON, ELLEN LEE, AND JEFFREY SWARTZ ALSO THEN TO EXPLAIN AND TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE LOCAL GUIDELINES, THEY WERE IN CONFLICT WITH ITS RULES, EVEN TO SUCH AN EXTENT WHERE LED WAS THINKING ABOUT, SO WHAT WORK AROUND POSSIBLY WE MAY BE ABLE TO DO, MAYBE HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE AUTOMATED TO NOTIFY A COMPANY IF THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT GOING INTO ORLEANS PARISH TO SEND THEM DIRECTLY TO WHERE THE RULES ARE SO THEY CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT THEY MAY COME UP AGAINST.
EVEN TO THAT EXTENT, THEY WERE TRYING TO DO SOME TYPE OF WORK AROUND.
THE THIRD INSTANCE, I BELIEVE WAS YES, G AND 0 INK.
AGAIN WHERE I WAS POINTING OUT WHERE THE RULES WERE IN CONFLICT.
AT NO TIME DID LED NOT MAKE THE LOCALS AWARE AT THAT TIME THAT THE RULES THAT THEY HAD IMPLEMENTED AND ADOPTED WERE IN CONFLICT WITH THE LOCAL ITEP RULES, ALL THE STATE ITEP RULES.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. PORTER?
DID YOU GET A RESPONSE FROM THE LOCALS WHEN YOU INFORMED THEM EACH TIME OF THE CONFLICT OF THE RULES? WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE?
>> THE RESPONSE WAS THE RULES ARE THE RULES.
THEY WERE NOT RECEPTIVE TO THE CHANGE.
WHICH IS THE REASON WHY WE WERE THINKING ABOUT DOING A WORK AROUND TO MAKE THE COMPANY'S AWARE TO GO TO WHERE THE RULES WERE, TO TAKE A LOOK TO SEE WHAT THEY MAY BE COMING UP AGAINST IN THE PARISH.
THEY WEREN'T RECEPTIVE TO CHANGE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MS. PORTER?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. STATE YOUR POSITION ONE MORE TIME FOR ME, PLEASE.
>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTINUING AGREEMENT THAT LED HAD WITH FOLGERS 10 YEARS AGO, 2010?
[02:45:02]
>> IT SEEMS LIKE TODAY THAT FOLGERS HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THESE LAST SIX CONTRACTS IS GOVERNED BY THAT CONTINUING AGREEMENT.
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ABOUT THAT?
>> I HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT THAT.
I THINK THAT THE SIX CONTRACTS THAT ARE IN QUESTION TODAY ARE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OR THE SCOPE OF THE 2010 CEA.
I ALSO THINK THAT SECTION 4.02B DOES NOT MEAN ARE OBLIGATE LED TO ENSURE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANIES ITEP APPLICATIONS IN PERPETUITY.
>> THESE CONTRACTS WERE UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER? THEY WERE MADE WHEN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT?
>> THEREFORE, IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT THE 20% WOULD BE OWED TO THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES IN ORLEANS PARISH.
>> THANK YOU, MR. HALL. ANYTHING ELSE FROM MS. PORTER? THANK YOU, MS. PORTER. IT'S TIME TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> YEAH. I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN VERY CONTENTIOUS AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION GOING AROUND, BUT IF I GO RIGHT BACK TO WHAT THIS BOARD'S AUTHORITY IS, I WOULD UTILIZE THAT AS THE BASIS FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. SLOAN, A SECOND FROM MR. BISHOP, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MOTION IS IT.
>> TO APPROVE ALL SIX CONTRACTS?
>> OKAY. ABSOLUTELY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
FIRST, WHO IS UP FIRST? MATHEW PHILIPS?
>> AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND I'M AS CLOSE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS YOU CAN GET THE BOOTS ON THE ROAD.
I MEAN THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AND A LOT OF OUR MUNICIPALITIES DON'T HAVE A SAY IN ANY OF THESE MATTERS.
BUT THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER DID GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SAY AND IT'S MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MY PARISH GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL BOARD, AND THE SHERIFF THAT I EXPRESS MY OPINION, I'M VERY HIGH TYPE FRIENDLY.
I'M VERY FRIENDLY OF THIS COMPANY AS WELL.
BUT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I NEED ANSWERED.
THESE CONTRACTS WHEN THEY CAME AND GOT APPROVED, THEY WERE SENT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT FELL UNDER THE NEW RULES THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAD A VOICE IN, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR CRITERIA IS, DID THEY HAVE A SAY IN IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT THEM OR NOT? IS MY QUESTION.
>> YES. THEY WERE APPROVED THE NOVEMBER 2020 MEETING BY THIS BOARD AND THEN IT WAS SENT TO THE LOCALS FOR THEIR CONSIDERATE.
>> ANYWAYS, IT WAS UNDER THE RULES THAT THE [OVERLAPPING] AND WAS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS APPROVAL WITHIN A TIMELY MANNER?
>> YES. THEY RETURNED THEIR NOTICE OF ACTION WHICH GAVE THEM 60 DAYS TO TAKE ACTION.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S THE QUESTION I NEEDED TO ASK AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
>> [LAUGHTER] MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT TIME TO ASK THE QUESTION, BUT I WANTED TO ASK SINCE THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL COUNSEL HAS EXPRESSED HER OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT ISSUE IS ON APPEAL TODAY.
OBVIOUSLY THEY'VE EXPRESSED THEIR OPINION THAT IT'S SUBJECT TO THE 2010 CONTRACT AND ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATIONS WERE MADE AFTER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
MY QUESTION IS, IS IT NUMBER 1, ANDREW? IS IT SUBJECT TO THE APPEAL OR IS THAT A MOOT ISSUE THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE ORDER?
>> ALL I CAN DO IS GIVE YOU AN OPINION.
THE WAY I READ THEIR APPEAL, I THINK THEY'RE MUCH LIKE MANY LAWYERS.
THEY PRESENT A CASE TO A JUDGE AND TRY TO GIVE THEM AS MANY PEGS AS POSSIBLE TO HANGING HIS HAT ON, AND I TEND TO AGREE WITH MS. PORTER.
I THINK THAT THE SUPPORT THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT.
[02:50:02]
I'M NOT SURE IT EXTENDS TO EVERY CONTRACT MOVING FORWARD, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY DISPOSITIVE OF THE OVERALL ISSUE.I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE PEGS THAT THEY PUT THEIR HANG YOUR HAT ON BUT I DON'T AGREE THAT THAT SUPPORT GOES TO SAYING WE HAVE TO RUBBER STAMP EVERYTHING THAT COMES ACROSS.
THIS BOARD STILL HAS AUTHORITY TO UP OR DOWN ANYTHING THAT COMES TO US, ACCORDING TO WHAT WE THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, THAT'S ALL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ANYTHING AT ALL, BE COMMENTS, BE FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? YES, SIR.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. JONES.
I DID NOT GET THE SECONDS TO HAVE THAT BUT, I AM CHAIR OF LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON THE ORANGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
IN THAT ENTIRETY, WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITH FOLGERS, IT HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE WAS EVER AN ALERT THAT THE CRITERIA DOES NOT RECONCILE WITH WHAT YOU ALL HAVE.
I JUST HEARD THAT THE CITY HEARD, WE NEVER HEARD.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I KNOW YOU ALL ABOUT TO VOTE.
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, BUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, IT'LL BE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO DETERMINE WHAT LOCAL CONTROL MEANS.
WHEN THE GOVERNOR GETS HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER LIKE THIS, WHAT DO WE OR DO WE NOT HAVE A SAY IN? IT STARTS TO FEEL LIKE THEN IF IT ALL MUST BE THE SAME AS WHAT THIS GROUP WOULD DO AS YOU ALL HAVE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY THEN IS THE LOCAL BOARD THEN JUST A CHECK ON WHAT YOU ALL WOULD DO IN CASE YOU ALL GO AWRY, AND THEN THIS START TO GET CONFUSING IN TERMS OF WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS, WHAT IS THE PROCESS? THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE BETTER COMMUNICATION, I BELIEVE, IN TERMS OF HOW WE MOVE FORWARD, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS ADDENDUM TO THE I-TAP THAT THERE'S A LOCAL SAY BECAUSE AT THIS POINT I'M BECOMING CONFUSED AS TO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE LOCAL ROLE.
IF IT'S NOT JUST TO MIRROR WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING, I SEE YOU SAYING THAT MAYBE THEY WENT TOO FAR, I WISH THEY'D BEEN COMMUNICATED TO US.
I FEEL LIKE A BIT OF A BAKE CAKE THEN TOLD WE DON'T LIKE CAKE.
I WOULD JUST LIKE MUCH BETTER COMMUNICATIONS GOING FORWARD.
I'LL BE THERE FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER TWO YEARS.
THERE'S ALWAYS THE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, THERE'S HUNDREDS OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS IN THE STATE, AND WE ALL TRY TO DO OUR BEST.
LIKE YOU POINTED OUT, WERE ALL VOLUNTEERS TRYING TO DO OUR BEST IN GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT WAY, AND I'D SAY IN LOUISIANA, WE HAVE A REALLY GOOD TRACK RECORD OF DOING GOVERNMENT WELL, IT COULDN'T BE CONTRARY TO OUR REPUTATION, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ABSOLUTELY SEEK TO DO.
THIS IS JUST BEGINNING TO BE CONFUSING AND FRUSTRATING IN TERMS OF WHAT'S EXPECTED.
I WILL ASK FOR CLARIFICATION MOVING FORWARD.
>> WELL, AND I THINK YOUR POINT'S WELL TAKEN, AND I THINK THAT ONE MESSAGE THAT CAN BE INFERRED, ASSUMING THIS MOTION CARE PASSES, ONE MESSAGE THAT CAN BE CONFERRED IS THAT FROM A BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE, ANY MUNICIPALITY, ANY SCHOOL BOARD, ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN HAVE GUIDELINES, BUT THEY CANNOT BE MORE STRINGENT THAN WHAT'S UNDER THE ITEP RULES.
THAT IS THE POINT, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO TO BE PART OF THIS PROCESS.
THE EXAMPLE I GAVE EARLIER JUST PROVIDED A PLACE FOR A COMPANY TO COME AND SAY, OKAY, TELL ME WHAT YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
TELL ME WHAT CAN WE DO TO BE PART OF YOUR COURSES? THIS IS THE POWER YOU HAVE, AND THIS IS THE THING THAT I WANT TO BE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO SAY, WE DON'T WANT YOU, WE'RE NOT WILLING TO GIVE UP ANY TAX REVENUE TO GET YOU HERE.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO SAY NO, WHICH THEREFORE GIVES YOU THE POWER TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE THIS IS THE CORPORATE CITIZEN WE WANT YOU TO BE.
THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS WE WANT YOU TO BE ENGAGED IN.
NOW YOU CAN'T CHANGE ITEP RULES, BUT YOU CAN CHANGE THE KIND OF BEHAVIOR THAT THEY MAY PARTICIPATE IN WHILE THEY'RE IN YOUR COMMUNITY.
I THINK AND AGAIN I'M JUST ONE MEMBER AND ONE VOTE, BUT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I THINK THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO, AND I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE FRANKLY GOOD THINGS THAT HAS COME OUT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER PROCESS IS THAT
[02:55:04]
THERE IS NOW MORE COMMUNICATION GOING ON BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAN THERE HAS BEEN IN TIMES PAST.I KNOW THAT AND I'VE HEARD SEVERAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT PEOPLE, THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID TO ME IS WE'RE HAVING BETTER COMMUNICATION WE'VE EVER HAD.
IF NOTHING ELSE, THAT'S A GOOD THING.
BUT I THINK THE LINCHPIN IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION IS THE CRITERIA THAT WAS GREATER THAN THE ITEP RULES.
>> THEN I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO BETTER COMMUNICATION IN TERMS OF WHAT DOES GREATER MEAN, BY WHAT DOES MORE STRINGENT MEAN, WHAT DOES MAYBE GETTING OUTSIDE OF OUR LANE MEAN? WE HAVE ACROSS THE STATE MANY INDUSTRIES THAT ARE THERE THAT ARE THEN MAKING SAY ADDITIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, SO IT BECOMES DIFFERENT QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT YOU THERE OR NOT, BUT WHAT ABOUT THESE NEW APPLICATIONS WHICH AREN'T ABOUT BEING THERE, BUT ABOUT NOW THAT YOU ARE THERE, WHICH ISN'T MAYBE A DIFFERENT QUESTION AND SO AGAIN, I WILL LOOK FORWARD TO GREATER CONVERSATION, COMMUNICATION ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK.
>> ABSOLUTELY. BUT AGAIN WE'VE ONLY HAD TWO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHERE WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUE.
>> AGAIN, WE NEED TO ADD THAT.
>> WE NEED ADD THAT WITH ANY OF THE OTHERS.
>> BUT AGAIN THEN THAT'S STILL THAT JUST POINTS OUT. I WOULD SAY STILL.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU AT ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY. THANK YOU.
>> MY NAME IS LINDA WRENN AND I'M COMING IN AS A CITIZEN, BUT I'M INVOLVEMENT TOGETHER NEW ORLEANS AND TOGETHER LOUISIANA AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS COMPLEX PROCESS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY BACKGROUND IN LAW OR CITY GOVERNMENT.
ONE THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS NOTIFIED THAT THEY WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE GUIDELINES, AND I DIDN'T HEAR AND MAYBE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ALSO GOT THAT COMMUNICATION.
THE SCHOOL BOARD BEING MORE MAYBE NOT QUITE AS POLITICALLY CONNECTED.
I WONDER IF THEY MIGHT HAVE KNOWN, IF THEY WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND SAID, ''HEY, Y'ALL ARE SCREWING THIS UP FOR US, AND WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.'' IF JUST THE CITY COUNCIL GOT THAT NOTICE, THAT'S CONCERNING WHEN THERE'S OTHER BODIES THAT ARE INVOLVED LIKE THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE?
>> I THINK IT'S A FAIR QUESTION, BUT I KNOW THAT IF YOU GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL WEB PAGE AND YOU GO TO THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, YOU GO TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND YOU LOOK UNDER ITEP PROCESS, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STEPS THAT A COMPANY HAS TO GO THROUGH UNDER THE MAYOR'S OWN DESCRIPTION.
IT BECOMES VERY CLEAR AS YOU READ THOSE STEPS THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE SHERIFF, ALL THREE ARE WORKING ON THAT PROJECT TOGETHER.
I CAN'T TELL YOU FOR SURE WHETHER THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO SCHOOL BOARD OR NOT, BUT IF THEY'RE WORKING CAREFULLY AND CLOSELY ON ALL THE APPLICATIONS, IT STANDS TO REASON THAT AT SOME POINT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A G, DID YOU KNOW, KIND OF THING.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT WEBSITE AND YOU SEE HOW THE STEPS WORK, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE THREE ORGANIZATIONS ARE WORKING TOGETHER.
THAT'S WHAT THE PROCESS IS, WHETHER IT WORKS, I DON'T KNOW.
>> AGAIN, THIS WILL SHOW MY IGNORANCE, BUT IF THIS ENTITY IN NEW ORLEANS OVERSTEPPED AND MADE GUIDELINES THAT WERE MORE STRINGENT AND THEY WERE NOTIFIED, IS THERE NOT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS GROUP HERE TO SAY, YES, THOSE GUIDELINES WERE TOO STRICT, BUT WE THINK THAT FOLGERS NEEDS TO PAY WHAT OUR GUIDELINES ARE OR IS THAT NO ABILITY TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO JUST GRANT THEIR APPEAL OR AND THEY PAY NOTHING.
>> THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. BUT THE GUIDELINES THAT NEW ORLEANS ADOPTED AND THE SCHOOL BOARD ADOPTED WENT TO THEIR COP TO FOLLOW THIS QUALIFICATION TO GET THE EXEMPTION,
[03:00:04]
IT WAS ALL OR NOTHING KIND OF THING.IT DIDN'T SAY YOU GET MORE OF AN EXEMPTION IF YOU DO THIS, LESS OF AN EXEMPTION IF YOU DO THAT.
I THINK THAT THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE ON THAT.
>> I UNDERSTAND. ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>NO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> VERY QUICKLY, MR. RODERICK, VERY QUICKLY.
>> I'VE NOT HEARD THE BOARD SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT THE CITY EXPRESSLY, BOTH IN INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE STAFF AND FORMALLY IN THE RESOLUTION, ESTABLISHED THAT ITS GUIDELINES WERE NOT USED AND DID NOT APPLY TO FOUR OF THE SIX EXEMPTIONS, FOR WHICH AN ADVANCED NOTICE HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE GUIDELINES.
IT SAID IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
IT SAID IT FORMALLY, AND IT SAID IT USING THE SAME CRITERIA THAT THIS BOARD USED IN THE INITIAL RULES AND EXECUTIVE ORDER OR THE FACT THAT THE SHERIFF, WHICH HAS NO GUIDELINES, PERIOD.
WE'VE TALKED TO MARLIN GUZMAN, WE'VE TALKED TO THE NEW SHERIFF, JUST DOES NOT HAVE GUIDELINES, REJECTED THEM.
ARE THEY BEING TREATED AS THOUGH THE GUIDELINES DID APPLY WHEN IN THOSE CASES THEY CLEARLY APPEAR NOT TO HAVE APPLIED? I HAVEN'T HEARD YOU SPEAK TO THAT AND THINK THAT THAT DOES DESERVE SOME CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
>> MR. SLOAN MADE THE MOTION, YOUR MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE SHERIFF OR WAS IT ONE OR TWO OR WAS IT SOME OF ALL? HELP EXPLAIN YOUR MOTION.
>> MY MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE FOLGERS COFFEE COMPANY CONTRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN LISTED BASED UPON ALL THE THREE APPROVING AUTHORITIES.
BECAUSE THEY BANNED TOGETHER TO CREATE WHAT WAS HERE.
THAT'S WHETHER THEY ABSTAINED OR NOT, IT CAME OUT AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S WHY MY MOTION IS TO APPROVE ALL SIX.
>> MR. BISHOP, YOU MADE THE SECOND DO YOU CONCUR? YES, SO THAT'S A YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? REAL QUICK, MR. WALTER.
>> YES. I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> GET FROM THE MIKE, I'M SORRY FOR THE COURT REPORTER.
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE RULE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THERE BE SOME EVIDENCE THAT A DECISION WAS BASED ON THE GUIDELINES AND I BELIEVE THAT THOSE THAT ARE EXPRESSLY NOT BASED ON THE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE MOTION AS IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
BECAUSE I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SHOWING OF AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND WHEN THE CITY OR THE SHERIFF ISN'T SAYING NOTHING AT ALL EXCEPT NO, WHICH IS YOU'VE SAID HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY NO, SIMPLY SAY NO.
IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO ATTRIBUTE THE OMISSIONS OF THE NEW ORLEANS CITY COUNCIL, FOR INSTANCE, ON THAT BODY, AND FOR THE FOR APPLICATIONS THAT WERE EXPRESSLY DONE OUTSIDE OF THE GUIDELINES.
IT AGAIN, WOULD BE UNFAIR TO APPLY THAT WHAT IS TANTAMOUNT TO A PUNISHMENT, BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST SAYING NO, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID FOR THOSE FOUR.
THANK YOU. I WOULD URGE THAT THOSE BE CARVED OUT; THE SHERIFF AND THE ONES SUBMITTED UNDER THE 2017 AND 2018 ITEMS NUMBERS.
>> IN A FEW MOMENTS, I SUSPECT WE'LL BE MAKING AN IMPORTANT VOTE ON THE ISSUE BEFORE US.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WHEN WE DO, I'M LOOKING PAST THE WORD FOLGERS AT THIS MOMENT AND LOOKING AT A PRECEDENT THAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO CHALLENGE THE VOICE OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.
CURRENTLY, WE JUST ASK FOR A YES OR NO, AND WE USE THAT AS THE STANDARD AGAINST HOW WE PROCEED.
[03:05:05]
YOU HAVE LOCAL SUPPORT OR YOU DON'T.IN THIS CASE, WE SEE VERY CLEARLY THAT THE LOCAL SUPPORT IS NOT THERE.
ANOTHER QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED WERE, ARE THESE STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE? THEY'RE NOT THE STANDARDS THAT WE RECOMMEND.
IN FACT, WE WERE IN THE ROOM AS ADVISORY AND SAID, THIS IS NOT THE WAY YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A LOT OF INDUSTRY IN YOUR FUTURE.
NOW, WERE THEY UNREASONABLE STANDARDS PUT IN? BASICALLY FOUR ELEMENTS OF THAT, $18 AN HOUR WAGE RELATED TO THE QUALITY JOBS PROGRAM FOR MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS, AND THESE ARE ONLY APPLICABLE TO MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS.
THAT WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE AN ONEROUS WAGE.
THERE WERE NEW JOB REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL RANGE BY THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSAL.
BUT IN SOME CASES, RETENTION AND MODERNIZATION ACTIVITIES ARE GOING TO CAUSE YOU TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PROJECT THAT DOES NOT CREATE NEW JOBS BUT HOLDS THE JOBS YOU HAVE IN PLACE.
THERE IS A JOBS REQUIREMENT, AND THAT'S MORE ONEROUS THAN WHAT WE MIGHT RECOMMEND.
THEY REQUIRE THAT THIS BE IN AN ENTERPRISE ZONE, AN OPPORTUNITY ZONE, OR A CENSUS TRACK WITH A LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE WAGE.
FINALLY, THEY DON'T WANT TO APPROVE ANY PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY STARTED.
NOW YOU CAN SUBMIT IT IN ADVANCE AND BEGIN YOUR PROJECT, BUT YOU DO SO AT RISK THAT THIS BOARD AND THE GOVERNOR WILL SIGN A TAX EXEMPTION CONTRACT FOR YOU LATER.
SPEED TO MARKET IS IMPORTANT TO COMPANIES.
TO DISQUALIFY THOSE COMPANIES THAT HAVE ALREADY BROKEN GROUND IS NOT ONE THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND.
HOWEVER, THEY WOULD CONSIDER THAT I WOULD THINK TO BE THE BUT-FOR, THAT I'M IN ORLEANS PARISH AND I WANT TO START THIS PROJECT AND I WANT YOUR APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TAX EXEMPTION.
BUT IF YOU'VE ALREADY STARTED, THAT'S OFF THE TABLE.
THOSE ARE THE IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU'VE HEARD DISCUSSED TODAY AS BEING TOO HIGH OF A BAR.
FROM MY VANTAGE POINT, IT'S A HIGHER BAR THAN I WOULD LIKE, BUT PARISH GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATIONS.
THESE HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BY ORLEANS PARISH GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
THEY AFFECT WHAT MR. BAGGER POINTED OUT, WHICH IS, HOW DO I TELL THEM THAT THEY'VE GOT A GOOD CHANCE OF SECURING APPROVAL? WELL, IF I HAVE THESE CRITERIA AND I MEET THESE FOUR KEY ELEMENTS, I'M LIKELY TO GET THAT APPROVAL.
WE CAN'T MICROMANAGE INTO 64 PARISHES, WE ARE GUIDING, ADVISING, AND WORKING WITH THIS BOARD TO SECURE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES.
BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU SURELY HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHILE THESE ARE MORE ONEROUS THAN YOU MIGHT WANT IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY, THOSE ARE POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN SELECTED BY THOSE PARISH GOVERNMENTS.
I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT IN THE PRECEDENT THAT'S BEING SET TODAY ON HOW WE PROCEED WITH THIS MATTER.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, OR QUESTIONS?
>> COULD I HEAR THE MOTION AGAIN, PLEASE?
>> THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY CONTRACTS AND I CAN LIST THEM ALL BUT THE SIX NUMBERS THAT ARE LISTED HERE LAST FOUR OF 0466, 0467, 0297, 0298, 03, AND I THINK YOU'VE CORRECTED IT 91?
>> I THOUGHT THAT THOSE APPLICATIONS HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED TWO YEARS AGO.
>> YES. ESSENTIALLY, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS DENIED THEM COMING TO US FOR AN APPEAL, WHICH WE BASICALLY OVERRULE THAT DENIAL AND SEND THE CONTRACTS TO THE GOVERNOR FOR HIS SIGNATURE.
>> MAYBE THE MOTION SHOULD BE SUSTAINING THE APPEAL OF FOLGERS IN AS MUCH AS IT WAS.
THE ORDINANCES OF THE ORLEANS PARISH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES WERE TOO
[03:10:02]
ONEROUS AND BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THIS BOARD.>> I HOPE SOMEBODY GOT THAT DOWN.
>> WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT, MR. SLOAN?
>> MR. BISHOP, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT? YES, HE WOULD. VERY GOOD.
CONTRARY TO THE BELIEF IN THE ROOM, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION, AT LEAST PARTIALLY.
NUMBER 1, I DON'T THINK THAT THE SHERIFF'S MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD.
I DON T THINK IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPEAL.
I THINK THE FACT IS WE DON'T KNOW THE BASIS FOR WHICH THE SHERIFF MADE HIS DECISION.
I THINK I KNOW, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT I HAVE THAT INDICATES TO ME THAT THE SHERIFF BASED HIS OPINION ON ANY CRITERIA.
THE FOUR RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCES, DID DRAW SOME VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS THAT I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY WERE WRITTEN, BUT NEVERTHELESS, THEY SAID WHAT THEY SAID.
THERE WERE FOUR APPLICATIONS THAT PRECEDED THE ORDINANCE AND ENACTED, THE CRITERIA WAS ENACTED IN 20, I HAD THOSE NUMBERS IN MY HEAD AN HOUR AGO.
ANYWAY, FOUR OF THESE APPLICATIONS CAME BEFORE THE CRITERIA WERE ENACTED TO HAVE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THOSE ORDINANCES CRITERIA TO THOSE APPLICATIONS, I DON'T THINK THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
TO THE CONTRARY, IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCES, THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID, WE'RE NOT APPLYING THE CRITERIA, THAT WE'RE DOING THIS BASED ONLY UPON THE FACT THAT WE NEED THE MONEY.
THE LAST TWO APPLICATIONS, HOWEVER, 2019-0391, AND 2019-0392, EACH OF THOSE SPECIFICALLY SAY THE CRITERIA ARE IN PLACE AND WE ARE APPLYING THEM.
BY THE WAY, WE ALSO NEED THE MONEY.
IN MY WORLD, THOSE LAST TWO ORDINANCES ARE CLEARLY BASED ON THE CRITERIA, THE FIRST FOUR ARE NOT.
AS IT STANDS, I DON'T THINK WE CAN SECOND-GUESS THE FIRST FOUR RESOLUTIONS.
BUT I THINK THIS BOARD ABSOLUTELY HAS A BASIS TO SECOND-GUESS THE OTHER TWO THAT I JUST MENTIONED.
THE SCHOOL BOARD, THEY SIMPLY RELIED ON THE CRITERIA COMPLETELY.
THEIR RESOLUTION SAY THAT THEY DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA, THEREFORE, YOU DON'T GET IT.
IN MY WORLD, A BETTER MOTION WOULD BE TO GRANT THE APPEAL AS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD MILLAGE TO GRANT THE APPEAL AS TO 2019-0391, AND 2019-0392, BUT TO DENY THE APPEAL IN THE REMAINING.
THAT TO ME WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE MOTION.
FOR THAT REASON, I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS ONE.
>> DO WE NEED TO AMEND THE MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN?
>> NOT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
IT'S UP TO MR. SLOAN AND MR. BISHOP.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T GET TO PICK WHICH MOTIONS GET AMENDED.
>> I WILL REMAIN WITH MY MOTION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HAVING NONE. I'M SORRY, MR. LEONARD.
>> JIMMY LEONARD AVANTIS CONSULTING.
I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK JUST TO ADD TWO POINTS.
WITH THE SHERIFF NOT HAVING A BODY IN WHICH YOU CAN RULE, WE WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY FORMAL INFORMATION FROM HIS SIDE.
BUT IN GOING THROUGH THE ORLEANS PARISH DOCUMENT THAT IS ON THEIR WEBSITE THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO READ AND FOLLOW, AND THESE ARE THE STEPS, IT CLEARLY STATES IN NUMBER 8, IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW ME, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 3 IN YOUR PACKET THAT YOU HAVE.
STEP 8 SAYS THE SHERIFF OFFICE SENDS A LETTER TO THE BCI
[03:15:03]
WITH APPROVAL OR DENIAL BASED ON THE ITEP COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION.THE ITEP COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS 2017 AND 2018 APPLICATIONS WAS TO APPROVE AND THE SHERIFF STILL DENIED.
IT SAYS THE PROCESS IS FOR HIM TO DO THAT AND SO THAT IS THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE SHERIFF.
WITH RESPECT TO HOW THE MATTERS WERE DETERMINED, THE ARTICLES THAT CAME OUT RIGHT AFTER THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE.
LET ME GET TO THAT. THIS IS GOING TO BE NUMBER [OVERLAPPING] 4 IN YOUR PACKET HIGHLIGHTED AT THE TOP.
I WILL READ A QUOTE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER CINDY, WHEN FOLGERS DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG.
COUNCIL MEMBER CINDY WARREN SAID, ADDING THAT SHE WAS ONLY VOTING TO REJECT THE APPLICATIONS BECAUSE THE CITY NEEDS THE MONEY AND BECAUSE THE APPLICATIONS DIDN'T MEET THE CITY STANDARDS WHICH ARE STRICTER THAN THE STATE." FURTHER AS YOU GO DOWN THE 17 AND 18 APPLICATIONS WHICH WERE DEEMED TO BE "GRANDFATHERED IN" AS WE STATED EARLIER, WHERE APPLICATIONS THAT WERE FILED AFTER INVESTMENTS WERE MADE WHICH WERE CONSISTENT WITH HOW FOLGERS HAD BEEN FILING ALL OF THEIR ITEP APPLICATIONS TO DATE, RAN AFOUL WITH THE ORLEANS PARISH REQUIREMENT TO PRE FILE WITH THEM FIRST AND SHE SAYS, NONE OF THE SIX APPLICATIONS MEET THE CITY'S CRITERIA.
THAT WAS ALL THE 17, 18, AND 19.
WHICH REQUIRES THE CREATION OF 15 JOBS WITH EACH JOB PAYING A MINIMUM OF 18.
ALSO, SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS WERE FOR FACILITIES AT FOLGERS HAD ALREADY BUILT, PROMPTING COUNCIL MEMBER HELENA MORENO TO CALL THE PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS A GIFT RATHER THAN AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE.
A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM HELENA MORENO, THANKS TO GOVERNOR EDWARDS A FEW YEARS AGO, WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM AND ALTERED STRONG LOCAL GUIDELINES TO ENSURE WE ONLY GRANT EXEMPTIONS IF CORPORATIONS MEET JOB CREATION AND LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS.
FOLGERS HAS MET GUIDELINES IN THE PAST AND THE COUNCIL HAS FAIRLY GRANTED THOSE EXEMPTIONS, WHICH I AM NOT AWARE OF.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY IN THOSE EARLY ATTEMPTS, BUT THE FOLGERS EXEMPTIONS IN QUESTION NOW FAIL THESE TESTS AND THE COUNCIL VOTED IT DOWN.
JUST SIMPLY WANTED TO MAKE SURE ALL THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION AND VOTE.
>> THANK YOU. ARE WE READY TO VOTE? THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE SIX CONTRACTS AND SEND THEM TO THE GOVERNOR FOR HIS EXECUTION.
>> LET'S HAVE A HAND VOTE, PLEASE.
WAIT LET'S DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, FORGIVE ME.
THAT WAY HELP THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
>> JUDE MOSS. REPRESENTATIVE VINCENT SAINT BLANK.
>> REPRESENTATIVE STEWART BISHOP.
>> WE'VE NINE NAYS, EIGHT YES.
>> MOTION FAILS BY A VOTE OF 9-8.
[03:20:07]
WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR A NEW MOTION ON THE FLOOR.WITHOUT SOME HELP ON REMEMBERING THE NUMBERS, I WILL MOVE THAT THE TWO THAT YOU SUGGESTED DID MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO TAKE A STAB AT THE MOTION?
>> WHY WON'T YOU DO IT. [LAUGHTER]
>> I'LL TAKE A STAB [OVERLAPPING] AT IT, BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE IT YOUR MOTION OKAY.
YOU CAN CORRECT IT THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE, THAT THE APPEAL OF FOLGERS BE APPROVED AS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD MILLAGE FOR THE SIX CONTRACTS THAT THE APPEAL OF FOLGERS AS TO THE CITY CONTRACTS BE APPROVED FOR 2019-0392, AND THAT THE APPEAL OF FOLGERS BE APPROVED FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD MILLAGE FOR THOSE SIX CONTRACTS.
>> I WILL ADOPT THAT LANGUAGE AS MY OWN.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> TO CLARIFY THE SHERIFFS TAXES ARE THEN NOT INCLUDED.
>> CORRECT. THE SHERIFFS TAXES AND THE FOUR THAT PREDATED THE ADOPTION OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT VERY BRIEF COMMENTARY.
THE SCHOOL BOARD, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING AND NO TESTIMONY WAS PROVIDED TODAY THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS EVER BEEN INFORMED THAT THEIR STANDARDS WE'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES.
WE THINK IT IS UNFAIR TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOMETHING ABOUT WHICH THEY WERE NOT INFORMED.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BRODERICK. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
REPRESENTATIVE VINCENT SAINT BLOCK IN HERE?
>> REPRESENTED STEWART BISHOP?
NOW WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO GO [LAUGHTER].
I'M TURNING TO THE BOARD FOR I WANT TO BE A GOOD STEWARD OF YOUR TIME.
I'M TRYING TO FIND MY AGENDA. I'VE LOST IT HERE.
THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] WE STILL HAVE LATE RENEWALS.
WE STILL HAVE SOME COMPLIANCE ISSUES AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS TO GO.
DO YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING? DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK? WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND KEEP GOING. GOOD DEAL. THANK YOU.
I WAS HOPING THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD SAY.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ONE COMPANY FALLING UNDER THE POST EXECUTIVE ORDER 2017 ROLES, NUMBER 2018 0076.
KEROTEST MANUFACTURING COOPERATION AND [INAUDIBLE].
I BELIEVE THE CONSULTANT IS HERE TODAY TO.
>> YES, SIR. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON.
[03:25:01]
MY NAME IS BILL SHOCKEY I'M WITH THE LAW FIRM SHOCKEY AND ASSOCIATES WERE LOUISIANA COUNCIL FOR CARRIER TEST AND THEIR CONSULTANT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT.I'M HERE TO REQUEST A DEFERRAL UNTIL YOUR NEXT MEETING.
>> THE NOTICE CAME TWO WEEKS AGO AND UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT WOULD BE FINE IF THE COMPANY HAD EXECUTIVE OFFICES IN MONROE, NEW ORLEANS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
[NOISE] PURE TESTS MANUFACTURING OPERATION IS HERE.
THEIR EXECUTIVE OFFICES ARE IN PITTSBURGH WITH MR. CHRIS WHITE IS THE CEO AND CFO.
THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL COMPANY, ABOUT $40 MILLION A YEAR.
THERE'S NOT LAYERS OF VICE PRESIDENTS BETWEEN THE CEO IN PITTSBURGH AND THE PLANT MANAGER IN MENSURA, WHO IS FINE AND OPERATIONS, BUT HE MAKES VALVES.
HE DOESN'T HAVE THE BIG PICTURE OF THE MARKET, ETC.
MR. WHITE, TO GET HERE FROM PITTSBURGH IS AT LEAST A TWO-DAY PROCESS.
YOU HAVE TO FIND YESTERDAY, MAYBE YOU GET TO FIND OUT THIS AFTERNOON. MAYBE YOU DON'T.
SOMETIMES A THREE-DAY AND HE JUST COULD NOT CLEAR EVERYTHING ELSE OFF OF HIS CALENDAR TO GET HERE.
I AM PREPARED TO PRESENT A STATEMENT ON HIS BEHALF, BUT I'M JUST A LAWYER FOLLOWING A SCRIPT, IF YOU WILL.
CERTAINLY, YOU CAN GET A MUCH BETTER DIALOGUE WITH MR. WHITE, I BELIEVE AT YOUR APRIL 26TH MEETING.
>> ACTUALLY THERE HAVE ONE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MUNICIPALITY TO TERMINATE.
I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE HIM HERE JUST TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DIFFER IF THAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM MR. SLOAN.
ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
WILL DEFER IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.
>> THANK YOU ALL, HE WILL BE HERE ON THE 26TH.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE NON-COMPLIANT CONTRACTS FOLLOWING THE 2018 ROLES.
WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT NUMBER 2018 0413, FOR GRAHAM PACKAGING COMPANY, LP, IN WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH AS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THEY EXHIBIT A REQUIRES THE COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN 55 JOBS WITH $2,402,400 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED WAS 44 JOBS WITH 3,234,852 IN PAYROLL.
THE FILING IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE JOB PORTION ONLY.
THE PARISH SUBMITTED A RECOMMENDATION STATING UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION HELD THIS DAY, THAT THE WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH COUNCIL DIFFERS AT LOUISIANA BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO REQUEST NO CHARGES OR PENALTIES IMPLIED DUE TO THE EXPLAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE MEN THEIR ORIGINAL ITEM APPLICATION BASED ON WESTBOUND ROUGE PARISH RESOLUTION THREE OF 2021.
THE RESOLUTION IS IN REFERENCE TO AMENDING THE EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THIS BOARD.
HOWEVER, THE AMENDMENT WAS PROSPECTIVE BEGINNING WITH 2022.
THE SCHOOL BOARD NOR SHERIFF RESPONDED WITH A RECOMMENDATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE?
>> JASON BARKER, PLANT MANAGER.
>> ANNA JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WEST BATON ROUGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
TELL US WHAT THE SITUATION IS AND THE REASON FOR THE NON-COMPLIANCE.
>> WHEN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS MADE, GRAHAM EMPLOYED 55 PEOPLE.
12 OF THE TEXTILE JOBS WERE RELATED TO OUR DE PALLETIZED OPERATION AND THERE WAS A CHANGE IN AGREEMENT WITH OUR CUSTOMER.
12 OF THOSE EMPLOYEES STAYED WITH OUR CUSTOMER AND CONTINUE THAT FUNCTION AS THEY TOOK IT OVER.
WHICH RESULTED IN, NOW WE HAVE 43 EMPLOYEES.
>> ESSENTIALLY THE WORK IS CONTINUING, BUT THE EMPLOYEES ARE WITH THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> CUSTOMER INSTEAD OF WITH YOU?
>> ALL RIGHT. AS YOU SEE, WE'VE HAD ONE RECOMMEND.
THE ONLY RECOMMENDATION FROM A LOCAL ENTITY WHO RESPONDED WAS TO TAKE NO ACTION.
THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE SHERIFF DID NOT TAKE TIME TO RESPOND? YES, MA'AM.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT HE DIDN'T MENTION.
THEY KNEW THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE FOR THE SAID CONTRACT HERE.
THEY DID PROACTIVELY REACH OUT TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND TO LED TO GET THEIR EXHIBIT A AMENDED.
THEY GOT IT AMENDED FOR, I BELIEVE 2022 MOVING FORWARD.
JUST DIDN'T COUNT FOR THE YEAR.
[03:30:03]
WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.>> WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH NO PENALTY.
SECOND FROM MR. NASSER, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSE? THERE BEING NONE.
MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD LUCK TO YOU.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE TWO CONTRACTS NUMBER 2018 0403.
IN 2018, 0403A FORINDARAMA VENTURES OLA FENCE, LLC AND CALCASIEU PARISH, THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THEY EXHIBIT A FOR BOTH CONTRACTS REQUIRES THE COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN THREE JOBS WITH 100,000 AND PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS AND PAYROLL WAS ZERO.
THE PARISH COUNCIL AND SHERIFF DID NOT RESPOND WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE SCHOOL BOARD ISSUED A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO REDUCE BY ONE YEAR THE TERM OF TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR EACH CONTRACT.
>> HI, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY PLEASE?
>> YES, I'M DAVID HEXTIMES THE SITE MANAGER FORINDARAMA VENTURES [OVERLAPPING]. GO AHEAD.
>> CHAT ANDERSON, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER AND HEAD OF MANUFACTURING FORINDARAMA VENTURES.
TELL US WHAT THE SITUATION IS. [NOISE]
>> HOLD THE MIC A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOU. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES SIR, IN 2021, WE FELL SHORT OF THE NUMBER OF LOUISIANA REQUIRED RESIDENT EMPLOYEES.
WE DO HAVE A HIGHER NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ON SITE, BUT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OPEN POSITIONS RELATED TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FILL AND WE'RE SLOW TO GET RE-EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF COVID AND SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS AROUND SEEKING EMPLOYEES DURING THE COVID TIME PERIOD.
WE ALSO HAVE A NUMBER OF TEXAS EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF OUR PROXIMITY TO THE BORDER AS WELL, WE ATTRACT EMPLOYEES FROM THAT AREA.
WE'RE CURRENTLY ACTIVELY WORKING TO FILL OPEN POSITIONS.
IT'S A COMPETITIVE AREA THERE IN WESTLAKE SULFUR.
WE'RE TRYING TO ACTIVELY RECRUIT PEOPLE OR WE'VE PARTNERED WITH HERE RECENTLY IN THE LAST YEAR.
SOELLA THERE P TECH PROGRAM OR DOING SOME MILITARY RECRUITING AS WELL.
IN ADDITION, WE'VE IMPROVED OUR 401K PLAN TO ATTRACT MORE EMPLOYEES TO THE SITE.
WE'RE DOING A LOT OF THINGS TO GET OUT TO OUR REQUIRED HEADCOUNT AND WE EXPECT WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
>> I WANT TO BE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU ONLY HAVE TWO CONTRACTS WITH THREE JOBS AT $100,000 IN SALARIES.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SIX JOBS OR JUST THREE JOBS FOR THE TWO CONTRACTS?
>> IT'S JUST THREE. THEY SHARE AND EXHIBIT THE AGREEMENT.
>> I'S ONE PROJECT THAT ASSETS WERE PLACED IN SERVICE IN DIFFERENT YEARS.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT WAS IT.
YOU SAID IT BETTER THAN I DID.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE HAD NO RESPONSE FROM THE POLICE JURY OR THE SHERIFF, BUT THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS RESPONDED AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD REDUCE THE TERM BY ONE YEAR.
DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD PRIOR TO THAT DECISION?
>> NO. WE WENT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING WHERE IT WAS DISCUSSED.
BUT THEY MADE THEIR JUDGMENT THERE AT THE SCHOOL BOARD LEVEL.
I DO HAVE A FEW NUMBERS TO SHARE.
IN 2021 THE LOUISIANA PAYROLL WAS $14.8 MILLION.
OUR AVERAGE SALARY FOR OUR LOUISIANA RESIDENTS IS $134,000.
THERE ARE TECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS.
WE NEED QUALIFIED EXPERIENCED OPERATORS TO RUN A HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL PLANT.
THIS IS NOT UNSKILLED WORKERS.
THESE ARE SKILLED WORKERS AND PEOPLE WITH VERY NEEDED SKILL SETS IN THAT AREA.
THAT'S BEEN A CHALLENGE FOR US TO TRACK PROVIDING ALL OF OUR LOCAL COMPETITION.
YET, YOU'VE ATTRACTED A LOT OF STUFF TO THE STATE AND WE'RE ALL TRYING TO DRAW FROM THE SAME WORKFORCE. [NOISE]
DO WE HAVE HOUSE PLEASURE? MR. MOSS.
>> MR. MOSS, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH A ONE-YEAR PENALTY, WITH SECOND FROM MR. SLOAN.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? GO AHEAD, JESSE.
>> JESSE BRODERICK WITH SUMIT CREDITS CONSULTANT THAT WORKS WITH INDORAMA AND ASSIST THEM THROUGH THEIR COMPLIANCE.
[03:35:04]
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS.ONE, WE DID MEET, NOT MEET WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, WE WERE AT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING, WE WERE PRESENT, WE EXPRESSED TO THEM THE HARDWORK IN TO MEET THE JOBS REQUIREMENT, TO MEET THE COMMITMENTS OF THE PROGRAM.
THEY'VE MADE THEIR DECISIONS ACCORDINGLY.
THE THING THAT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER, JUST AS YOU CONSIDERED EARLIER TODAY, IT WAS ONLY THE SCHOOL BOARD, WAS THE ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT IS REQUESTING A REDUCED TERM.
THE PARISH AND THE SHERIFF ACTUALLY WERE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT, BUT THEY CHOSE TO JUST NOT SAY ANYTHING AS OPPOSED TO SEND A LETTER AND MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A LETTER.
MR. JONATHAN FROM THE ALLIANCE IS HERE AND HE COULD PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT.
BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT YOU MAYBE CONSIDER IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A PENALTY TO ONLY HAVE IT APPLY TO THE SCHOOL BOARD PORTION.
>> I WILL OFFER A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO THAT EXTENT, TO A ONE-YEAR PENALTY FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD AND NO PENALTY FOR THE OTHER TWO ENTITIES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE THE SCHOOL BOARD SPOKE OUT AGAINST IT?
>> EXACTLY. THAT'S WHY I'M REPRESENTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THEY SPOKE OUT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> COME FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THEY'RE ARE IN MY BACKYARD.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I KNEW THAT'S WHY. I KNOW THE COMPANY.
>> I THINK WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE.
>> I'M OKAY WITH THE SUBSTITUTE.
>> WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO BASICALLY APPROVE WITH A ONE-YEAR PENALTY FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD MILLAGE, BUT NO PENALTY FOR THE POLICE JURY AND THE SHERIFF.
>> MR. JOHNS, I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU ALL CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD PUT THE EXPIRATION [NOISE] DATE OF THE CONTRACT DIFFERENT FOR THE SAME CONTRACT FOR DIFFERENT MILLAGES.
>> OH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN I'M GOING TO STAY WITH MY ORIGINAL, MAYOR.
>> I UNDERSTAND. I SEE THE POINT.
>> WELL-TAKEN. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE WITH ONE-YEAR PENALTY ACROSS THE BOARD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> NEXT [NOISE]. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER MY VOTE AS A NAY [LAUGHTER].
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE.
I ASKED FOR THE AYES, ANY OPPOSITION?
>> NAY. WE HAVE TWO NAYS, [LAUGHTER] MR. MAGANUS AND MAYOR TUBES.
I'M SORRY, I'M GETTING A LITTLE PUNCHY, GUYS.
>> NEXT WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT, NUMBER 2018-0275 FOR INSTRUMENT AND VALVE SERVICES COMPANY IN CALCASIEU PARISH THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBIT A FOR THE CONTRACT REQUIRES THE COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN FIVE JOBS WITH 268,000 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS IN PAYROLL WAS ZERO.
THE COMPANY IS ALSO NON-COMPLIANT DUE TO THE LATE FILING.
THE COMPLIANCE WAS DUE APRIL 30TH OF 2022, BUT NOT RECEIVED UNTIL JUNE 27TH, 2022.
NO RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED FROM THE PARISH, THE SHERIFF, OR THE CITY.
THE SCHOOL BOARD DENIED THE INITIAL EXEMPTION AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE.
>> YES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> I'M DOUG COLLINS, I'M A SITE SELECTION CONSULTANT WITH KROLL AND I ASSISTED INSTRUMENT AND VALVE SERVICES WITH THIS ORIGINAL CONTRACT.
THEN I'M JOINED HERE TODAY BY.
>> CLIFF MCDANIEL. I'M DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL OPERATIONS FOR JOHN H. CARTER.
>> PULL THE PUBLIC ADDRESS CLOSER. JUST PULL IT TO YOU. THERE WE GO.
>> EARLIER AT THE MEETING TODAY, WE HAD REQUESTED THE CONTRACT BE ASSIGNED OVER FROM INSTRUMENT OF VALVE SERVICES TO JOHN H. CARTER, WHICH WAS APPROVED HERE BY THE BOARD.
IF I CAN GIVE SOME BACKGROUND ON THE OVERALL PROJECT AND WHAT TRANSPIRED, I THINK THAT WILL EXPLAIN THE NONCOMPLIANCE FOR 2021.
>> FIRST OF ALL, TELL ME WHAT YOU MAKE. TELL ME WHAT'S MADE.
>> THEY MANUFACTURE VALVES AND VALVE MANUFACTURING AND REPAIR AT THEIR FACILITY.
>> THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED BY INSTRUMENT AND VALVE SERVICES IN 2019.
IT WAS A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY.
[03:40:02]
ABOUT FOUR MILLION DOLLARS OF CAPEX, 3.7 MILLION.AS PART OF THIS EXPANSION, IT WAS ACTUALLY BUILT ON GREENFIELD.
THEY WERE GOING TO CREATE 25 NEW JOBS AS A PART OF THIS FACILITY, SO RETAIN THE 11 AND THEN ADD 25 NEW JOBS.
THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN MAY 15TH OF 2020.
OPERATIONS BEGAN IN JUNE 2020 DURING COVID, AND INSTRUMENT AND VALVE SERVICES RETAINED ALL EMPLOYEES DURING THAT TIME.
IN AUGUST OF 2021, INVS TRANSFERRED OPERATIONS TO JOHN H. CARTER, MEANING THAT INVS ESSENTIALLY TERMINATED ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY HIRED BY JOHN H. CARTER.
ALL EMPLOYEES FROM MY INVS WERE REHIRED BY JOHN H.
CARTER WHO TOOK OVER THE OPERATIONS AT THE FACILITY WITH NO INTERRUPTIONS TO BUSINESS, NO IMPACT TO CUSTOMERS, THEY'RE IN THE FACILITY.
AT THAT TIME, JOHN H. CARTER PURCHASED THE ASSET AT THE FACILITY AND THEN DECIDED TO LEASE THE BUILDING WHILE THEY WORKED DOWN NEGOTIATIONS ON ACTUALLY PURCHASING THE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO THEN TRANSFER THE CONTRACT OVER.
TECHNICALLY, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2021, INVS DID NOT EMPLOY ANY EMPLOYEES AT THE FACILITY, THOSE WERE EMPLOYED BY JOHN H. CARTER AT THE TIME.
ON OUR 2021 COMPLIANCE REPORT, THE REASON WE'RE SHOWING ZERO NEW EMPLOYEES IS BECAUSE TECHNICALLY INVS HAD TRANSFERRED THOSE OPERATIONS OVER TO JOHN H. CARTER AT THAT TIME.
JOHN H. CARTER HAS CONTINUED OPERATIONS THERE AT FACILITY.
THEY ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYING 29 EMPLOYEES WITH $2.5 MILLION IN PAYROLL THAT IS EXCEEDING THE CONTRACT'S FULL REQUIREMENTS STIPULATED IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH THE INVS.
PART OF WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING HERE IS TO TRANSFER THE ASSIGNMENT OVER TO JOHN H. CARTER, WHICH WAS APPROVED.
THEN FOR THIS COMPLIANT PROVISION, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE INCENTIVE IS MAINTAINED AT THE CURRENT RATE AND THAT JOHN H. CARTER IS ABLE TO UTILIZE THIS TAX EXEMPTION GOING FORWARD AND SUPPORT THEIR BUSINESS.
>> I THINK I FOLLOWED THAT AND I HAVE ONE QUESTION JUST TO FOLLOW UP.
THE FIVE JOBS WERE CREATED AND THE PAYROLL WAS MET, BUT IT WAS BEING PAID BY JOHN H. CARTER INSTEAD OF INSTRUMENT AND VALVE SERVICES?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL FOLLOW WHERE WE ARE? BASICALLY WE JUST TRANSFERRED THIS CONTRACT FROM THIS COMPANY TO A DIFFERENT COMPANY EARLIER IN THE MEETING, AND THAT THEY HAD ALREADY STARTED OPERATING THE COMPANY MEETING THE OBLIGATIONS.
THE QUESTION THEN REALLY BECOMES, IF WE APPROVE THIS, IT WILL GO TO THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY THAT'S ALREADY OPERATING AT THE SITE, UNDER A NEW NAME.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE GOTTEN NO RESPONSE FROM ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH NO PENALTY.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MAYOR TUBES.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT, NUMBER 2017-0480, FOR THE LOUISIANA SPIRITS, LLC AND JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBIT A FOR THE CONTRACT REQUIRES THE COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN THREE JOBS WITH 90,000 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED WERE SEVEN JOBS WORTH $27,148 IN PAYROLL.
THE COMPANY IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE PAYROLL PORTION ONLY.
THE PARISH SUBMITTED A RECOMMENDATION STATING TO DEFER ANY DECISION OR ACTION ON THE COMPANY'S NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE LOUISIANA BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
THE SCHOOL BOARD SUBMITTED A RECOMMENDATION STATING TO TAKE NO ACTION AGAINST LOUISIANA SPIRITS FOR ITS NON-COMPLIANCE, AND THE SHERIFF DID NOT RESPOND.
>> COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS ANGELO TORRE, AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF MANUFACTURING FOR STOLI GROUP AND THE MANAGING OFFICER FOR LOUISIANA SPIRITS, WHICH IS THE MANUFACTURER OF SEVERAL BRANDS; BAYOU RUM, KENTUCKY OWL BOURBON, AND GATOR BITE LIQUEUR.
>> I'M JESSE BRODERICK WITH SUMIT CREDITS, JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY GENERAL QUESTIONS.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE EXCEEDED THE JOB REQUIREMENTS, BUT YOU FELL SHORT ON THE PAYROLL.
>> IT WAS THE PAYROLL TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR, I BELIEVE,
[03:45:02]
THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, SOME OF THAT ROLLED INTO THE NEXT YEAR, 2022.IN 2022 IS WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE ORGANIZATION AND I WAS MADE AWARE OF OUR SHORTFALL, AND SINCE THEN HAVE DOUBLED THE PAYROLL AND THE NUMBER OF FTES.
SO WE'RE NOW AT ACTUALLY 36 EMPLOYEES WITH A PAYROLL OF $1.8 MILLION.
I MET WITH ALL THREE TAXING ENTITIES, AND I DO HAVE A LETTER FROM THE SHERIFF, IVY WOODS, WHERE HE RECOMMENDED NO PENALTY AS WELL.
>> JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YOU'RE CORRECT THAT 2021 WAS A ROUGH YEAR FOR THEM AND THEY DID HIRE A NUMBER OF JOBS TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR IN DECEMBER.
THEY MET THE JOBS REQUIREMENT ACTIVE AS OF THE END OF THE YEAR, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY A MONTH OR TWO IF PAYROLL, THAT'S WHY THEY DID NOT MEET THE PAYROLL REQUIREMENT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH NO PENALTY, A SECOND FROM MR. [INAUDIBLE].
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT NUMBER 2018 0110 FOR SERVICE MACHINE AND SUPPLY INC. AND LAFAYETTE PARISH, THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBIT A FOR THE CONTRACT REQUIRES A COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN TWO JOBS WITH 100,000 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS AND PAYROLL WAS ZERO.
THE PARISH DENIED THE INITIAL EXEMPTION AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION, SO IT DOES NOT APPLY, AND NO RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD NOR THE SHERIFF.
>> [OVERLAPPING] MY NAME IS CHRIS MESH.
>> TELL US WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FAILURE TO ADD THE TWO NEW JOBS WITH THE SALARIES.
>> WELL, THIS IS SEMINAR I WAS HERE LAST YEAR ABOUT THIS TIME EXPLAINING WHERE WE WERE AND HOW WE'D BEEN AFFECTED BY EVERYTHING.
FIRST, REASON BEING COVID SHUTDOWN, WHICH IS SELF-EXPLANATORY.
WE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS IN REVENUES FOR THE 20 THROUGH 22 YEARS AS COMPARED TO 19 AS A BASE YEAR BEFORE THE COVID AND BEFORE THE SLOWDOWN IN THE INDUSTRY.
WE SUFFERED ABOUT A 53% LOSS OF REVENUE IN 2020 COMPARED TO 19 TO 21 YEAR WAS A 48% LOSS.
BUT LOOKING FORWARD TO 22, WE'RE ONLY AT 19% LOSS.
THINGS ARE DEFINITELY IMPROVING WITHIN THE INDUSTRY, AND THE REVENUES ARE BEING GENERATED.
THUS OUR NEXT POINT IS WITH THE JOBS.
BUT THE MIDDLE WAY, 21 WAS ACTUALLY OUR TOUGHEST YEAR.
WE ACTUALLY DROPPED DOWN TO 33 JOBS, BUT 22 HAS PICKED UP SUBSTANTIALLY ABOUT MIDWAY THROUGH 22, WE'VE GOTTEN TO 38 JOBS AND WE'RE THERE NOW.
>> YOUR BASE NUMBER OF JOBS WAS WHAT AT THE TIME OF THE CONTRACT?
>> THIRTY EIGHT. THIRTY SIX WAS WHERE WE WERE WHEN WE STARTED THE CONTRACT [OVERLAPPING] TO NEW JOBS.
I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE COMPANY PRESIDENT YESTERDAY AND HE SAID THERE'S A LACK OF EXPERIENCED PEOPLE OUT THERE TO HIRE.
HE SAID, HE ACTUALLY COULD HIRE 8-10 MORE TODAY, BUT HE'S JUST HAVING TROUBLE FINDING QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.
>> FOR THE TWO EXTRA EMPLOYEES THAT YOU'VE PICKED UP, ARE YOU MEETING THE SALARY REQUIREMENT AS WELL?
>> WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO APPROVE WITH NO ACTIONS OR PENALTIES AS THEY DID LAST YEAR.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE HELP THAT WE WERE GIVEN LAST YEAR.
>> AGAIN, WE'VE GOTTEN NO RESPONSE FROM THE ENTITIES THAT HAVE THE CONTRACTS IN PLACE.
A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH NO PENALTY? A MOTION MR. SLOAN A SECOND.
MR. SAINT BLANC, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> LAST WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT NUMBER 2018 04604, ATTORNEY USA INC. AND CATO PARISH, THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBIT FOR THE CONTRACT REQUIRES A COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN SIX JOBS WITH 390,000 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS AND PAYROLL WAS ZERO.
NO RESPONSES ARE RECEIVED FROM THE PARISH, THE SCHOOL BOARD, OR THE SHERIFF.
>> HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JORGE ATENA. I'M THE REGIONAL CONTROLLER OF
[03:50:05]
TERNIUM. I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS WAS A VERY TEMPORARY SITUATION FROM THE LAST QUARTER DURING 2021.THE REASONS WHERE WE HAD A LOT OF TURNOVER DURING THAT YEAR, I THINK IT WAS A PARTICULAR SITUATION IN THE LABOR MARKET ALL ACROSS THE US.
WE WERE HAVING A LOT OF RESIGNATIONS AND OUR HR, WERE HAVING A HARD TIME TO REPLACE SUCH JOBS AND KEEP THEM.
BASICALLY, I BELIEVE THAT IN TERMS OF AMOUNT OF THE SALARY OF THE PAYROLL, WE ACHIEVED THE GOAL, BUT THEY DIDN'T COUNT BECAUSE THEY WERE SO TEMPORARY BECAUSE OF THAT TURNOVER.
WE WORK A LOT OF CHANGING THE POLICIES TO ATTRACT NEW JOBS.
BY FEBRUARY WE WERE ON THE LEVEL THAT WE SHOULD BE.
ACTUALLY, WE WERE CREATING TWO MORE JOBS THAN THE SIX THAT WERE COMMITTED.
BY FEBRUARY WE WERE IN 168 ALREADY.
IT WAS JUST BASICALLY THOSE THREE MONTHS, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER, THAT WERE REALLY CHAOTIC TO KEEP ALL THE PAYROLL.
>> MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, SO AS OF FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, 2023, YOU'RE AT THE NUMBER THAT [OVERLAPPING]
BASICALLY BY NOVEMBER WE WERE IN 178 WITH A PAYROLL 40 MILLION.
>> I'M SORRY, 2022 [OVERLAPPING]
>> BY FEBRUARY 2022, WE WERE ON 168 AND BY NOVEMBER 2022 WE WERE IN 178.
>> AGAIN, WE HAVE NO DIRECTION FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE PARISH, OR THE SHERIFF.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE MR. NASSER WITH NO PENALTY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE. ANY COMMENTS IN THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> ALL OPPOSED? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, MR. JOSE. NOW, ANY OTHER BUSINESS WE HAVE ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
[8. Other Business Election of Officers ]
ARE THERE ANY OFFICERS TO BE NOMINATED? ANYBODY WANT THIS JOB? [LAUGHTER]>> I DO NOT WANT TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY.
>> I NOMINATE GERALD JONES FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CHAIR.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS [LAUGHTER].
>> NONE OF YOU GET CHRISTMAS CARDS [LAUGHTER].
DO WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIRMAN? I'M SORRY.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. NASSER THAT MR. SLOAN AND CONTINUE IN THAT CAPACITY.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO LAW SCHOOL.
>> MOTION SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, MR. SLOAN.
>> WE'RE GOING TO FOREGO THE SECRETARY'S REMARKS UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LENGTH OF THE MEETING AND PERHAPS THE CONTAGIOUSNESS OF IT.
BUT THANK YOU ALL FOR HANGING WITH US.
MOTION TO ADJOURN? WE HAVE A MOTION.
>> WE ARE ADJOURNED. [LAUGHTER]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.