[1. Call to Order – Jerald Jones, Chairman]
[00:00:03]
WE HAVE A QUORUM.I CALL THE APRIL 2023 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO ORDER.
IT'S GOOD TO SEE EVERYONE TODAY.
BEFORE WE GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF THE MEETING, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE, THE BOARD, LED, THE STATE OF LOUISIANA LOST A FRIEND IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS.
DON BRIGGS USED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD FOR A TIME.
FOR THOSE OF YOU KNOW, HE PASSED ON IN EARLY APRIL AT THE AGE OF 82 PEACEFULLY IN HIS HOME.
BUT PLEASE REMEMBER GIFFORD AND THE FAMILY AND DON'S FAMILY IN YOUR PRAYERS BECAUSE DON WAS A FIXTURE IN THIS STATE FOR A LONG TIME, DID A LOT FOR THE OIL AND GAS COMMUNITY PARTICULARLY, BUT HE WAS A VALUABLE MEMBER OF THIS BOARD AS WELL.
I HOPE YOU WILL REMEMBER HIM WELL.
MISS BRENDA, IF YOU WILL CALL THE ROLL.
>> DEBORAH, GOOD MORNING. BRANDON BURRIS.
REPRESENTATIVE SENATOR MIKE REESE.
>> SENATOR BRET ALLAIN. REPRESENTATIVE LES FARNUM.
>> DEPUTY SECRETARY BRAD LAMBERT.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. BOARD MEMBERS,
[3. Approval of Minutes from March 1, 2023 meeting]
YOU'VE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR MARCH 1 MEETING.I HOPE YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM.
IF SO, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS, 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 OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
MISS DOUGBY, HOW ARE YOU THIS MORNING?
[4. Quality Jobs Program – Michaela Adegbe]
>> GOOD MORNING. I'M DOING WELL MYSELF
>> WALK US THROUGH THE QUALITY JOBS PROGRAM, PLEASE.
>> WE HAVE SIX NEW APPLICATIONS, 2020-371, GULF ISLAND WORKS, LLC, TERREBONNE PARISH, 2021-0440, HOST TERMINALS, LLC, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, 2021-0050 IMTT, ORLEANS PARISH, 2020-0525, L3 HARRIS AT THOMAS SERVICE VEHICLES, LLC, LAFAYETTE PARISH, 2020-0458, LASHIP LLC, TERREBONNE PARISH, 2021-0256, METHANEX USA SERVICES LLC, ASCENSION PARISH.
>> VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THESE QUALITY JOB APPLICATION? WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR TOUPS, SECOND FROM MR. MOSS.
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.
>> THERE'S ONE RENEWAL, 2018-0199, CITADEL COMPLETIONS LLC, CALCASIEU PARISH.
>> IN MOTION ON THIS RENEWAL OF MOTION TO APPROVE FROM DR. WILSON, SECOND FROM MR. MOSS.
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.
>> THIS CONCLUDES QUALITY JOBS.
>> YOU HAVE A GREAT DAY. RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM.
[5. Restoration Tax Abatement Program – Frank Favaloro]
MR [INAUDIBLE] IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU THIS MORNING.>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP TODAY GETTING US A QUORUM.
>> FIRST OF ALL, MS. LAMBERT HAS RETIRED.
>> YOU ARE GOING TO BE TAKING HER PLACE?
>> NO, SIR, I'M NOT. [LAUGHTER].
>> YES. [LAUGHTER] AND ON THAT COMMENT, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE TRAVIS ROSENBERG.
HE'S RIGHT BEHIND ME. HE'S GOING TO BE TAKING OVER THE DUTIES OF BECKY LAMBERT AS PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR FOR TODAY.
>> EXCELLENT. WELCOME TO THE TEAM, MR. ROSENBERG.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD DEAL.
FRANK, SHOW HIM HOW IT'S DONE.
>> YES, SIR. DON'T FOLLOW MY LEAD.
[LAUGHTER] RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT HAS ONE NEW APPLICATION,
[00:05:02]
2020-0060 OR LLC IN ORLEANS PARISH, TOTAL INVESTMENT OF $454,010.THAT CONCLUDES THE RTA NEW APPLICATIONS.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION? MS. COLA. SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
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 BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THERE ARE TWO SPECIAL REQUESTS FOR THE RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP, 2013-0919, 333 COMMERCE LLC TO COMMERCE ON LAUREL LLC IN EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, AND 2016-0702, FORMER OWNER SUPREME BRIGHT NEW ORLEANS TO LLC.
THE NEW OWNER IS SUMMIT NCIJV 182-183, LLC, IN ORLEANS PARISH.
THAT CONCLUDES THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE FROM MR. NASSER.
>> SECOND FROM MR. MOSS. 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.
>> WE HAVE ONE SPECIAL REQUEST, ASH BROTHERS LLC 2022-0448.
ON 10-6-2022, ASH BROTHERS FILED IN ADVANCE FOR A BOAT IN OUR V STORAGE FACILITY PROJECT INDICATING MAJOR RENOVATION OF SEVERAL BUILDINGS.
ON 10-31-2022, ASH TIMELY FILED ONE APPLICATION AND CORRESPONDING $500 APPLICATION FEE.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE PROJECT INCLUDED MULTIPLE STRUCTURES AND PROGRAM RULES REQUIRE SEPARATE APPLICATIONS PER STRUCTURE, LED STAFF LISTED THE PROJECT STATUS AS INFORMATION REQUIRED IN FAST LANE AND ADVISED ASH THAT ADDITIONAL APPLICATION SHOULD BE FILED DETAILING INVESTMENTS AND RENOVATIONS PER STRUCTURE, LIKELY FOUR ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS AT A MINIMUM ADDITIONAL COST OF $500 PER APPLICATION.
ASH APPEALED THIS DECISION TO LED AND WAS DENIED.
REPRESENTATIVE SHECXNAYDER, ON BEHALF OF ASH NOW APPEALS THIS MATTER TO BCNI.
>> THIS IS JUST FOR THE BOARD'S CONTINUING EDIFICATION BECAUSE I HAD TO DIG INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT TO UNDERSTAND THAT APPARENTLY THE RULES FOR THE RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT.
AND JUST AS A REMINDER, THE TAX ABATEMENT IS A STRUCTURE-ORIENTED PROGRAM.
WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO DO IS TO HELP PEOPLE TAKE OLDER BUILDINGS AND RESTORE THEM.
HENCE THE NAME RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT.
IT GIVES THEM AN ABATEMENT TO HELP RECOUP THE COST OF BRINGING THE OLDER BUILDINGS AND SOME OF OUR COMMUNITIES BACK TO THEIR FORMER GLORY.
THE RULES FOR TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE REQUIRED THAT FOR EVERY SEPARATE STRUCTURE REQUIRES A SEPARATE APPLICATION WITH A SEPARATE APPLICATION FEE.
JONES, SPEAKING, THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THE RULES ARE.
I'M BEING TOLD BY LED STAFF THAT THEY ARE DOING A PRETTY SINCERE LOOK AT OUR RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT RULES TO SEE HOW WE MIGHT BRING THEM INTO THE YEAR 2023, MUCH LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THE BUILDINGS BACK TO THE YEAR 2023.
BUT IN ANY EVENT, RIGHT NOW THE RULES DO REQUIRE SEPARATE APPLICATIONS.
THE APPEAL HAS BEEN MADE TO THIS BOARD TO ALLOW ASH BROTHERS, LLC TO CONTINUE UNDER ONE APPLICATION.
UNDER THE RULES, IT ALLOWS THIS BOARD TO PROVIDE THAT EXCEPTION IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE BOARD.
SO THE REQUEST BY ASH BROTHERS IS THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED UNDER ONE APPLICATION WITH ONE APPLICATION FEE, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE SEPARATE STRUCTURES, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO FILE SEPARATE.
>> BEAUTIFULLY SAID. YOU SHOULDN'T BE MORE CLEAR. [LAUGHTER]
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH THAT MEANS TO ME [LAUGHTER].
IT IS UP TO THE BOARD ON HOW YOU WISH TO HANDLE THIS.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I SEE NO IMPEDIMENT TO PROCEEDING AS REQUESTED, BUT IT'S UP TO THE BOARD.
GEORGE, YOU LOOK PUZZLED. WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION?
>> NO, I'M NOT PUZZLED. I HAVE A LITTLE ISSUE GOING AGAINST THE RULES ON THIS.
I JUST HAVE AN ISSUE WITH GOING AGAINST LED RULES ON THIS.
>> YOUR POINT THAT THE RULES ALLOW THE BOARD TO WAVE IF THAT IS THE WISH, BUT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE BOARD TO WAVE.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL AS THOUGH YOU'RE BEING PUSHED TO DO SO.
>> NO, I UNDERSTAND BUT I FEEL LIKE ONCE IT WAS APPEALED TO LED,
[00:10:02]
AND LED DENIED, AND NOW IT COMES TO THE BOARD AND WE CAN OVERRULE THAT, AND I'LL UNDERSTAND.ONLY STATEMENT THAT I FEEL, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD OVERRULE LED ON THE ROOTS ON THIS.
>> I AM GOING TO MAKE THAT MOTION RIGHT NOW.
>> I UNDERSTAND. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT TO LED, IT'S TO THE BOARD. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> BECAUSE THE APPEAL WENT TO LED BUT LED DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT SUCH AN APPEAL EVEN IF IT WERE MADE TO THEM.
IT'S NOT THAT LED CONSIDERED THE REQUEST AND DENIED IT.
IT IS SIMPLY SAID WE DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, IS ONLY UP TO THIS BOARD HAVING THE AUTHORITY.
>> OKAY, BECAUSE IT HAS APPEALED THIS DECISION TO LED AND WAS DENIED.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE FORGET WORDS HAVE MEANING.
>> CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
IS IT TOO LATE FOR THEM TO FILE FOR THE ABATEMENT OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO ALLOW THEM OR MAKE THEM FOLLOW THE RULES AND FILE THE APPLICATIONS?
>> NO. IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO DO.
THE BOARD CAN REQUIRE THEM TO GO BY THE RULES AND FILE A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR EACH ONE OR WE CAN WAIT THAT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT IMPEDES THEIR ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> WHAT'S THE VALUE OF THE ABATEMENT IN TOTAL?
>> FAIR QUESTION. MR. VALERO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME WITH THAT.
>> TOTAL INVESTMENT IS 454,000.
HERE IT IS. ABOUT OVER FIVE YEARS, $33,000.
>> WHAT'S THE BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT IF THEY HAVE TO FILL OUT THREE MORE APPLICATIONS AND PAY ANOTHER $1,500 TO GET THIS $33,000 TAX ABATEMENT?
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BURDEN WOULD BE IF WE SAY NO AND THEY HAVE TO FILL OUT THIS.
>> HOW EXTENSIVE ARE THE APPLICATIONS?
>> I DON'T THINK THEY'RE EXTENSIVE, BUT EACH ONE REQUIRES DOCUMENTATION.
THE DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED ON THE CURRENT APPLICATION COULD APPLY TO THE MULTIPLE SET OF APPLICATIONS, YES.
>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE'RE ASKING THEM TO FILL OUT SOME ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK AND PAY $1,500.
IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, THEY GET A $33,000 TAX BREAK.
>> YES OVER FIVE. OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> I'M JUST WANTING TO BE CLEAR.
IS THERE A REASON THAT ASH DID NOT FOLLOW THE ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS? DID THEY PROVIDE A REASON?
>> I CAN'T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY FOR ASH BROTHERS, BUT THEY FILED ONE APPLICATION, ONE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES, AND WE FORMED THAT MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS WERE DUE FOR MULTIPLE CHARGES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM ASH BROTHERS? WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE? IT'S HERE, IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF THE MIC.
JUST PULL THE MIC CLOSE TO SO THAT WE SHOULD, IT HELPS THE COURT REPORTER WITH TRANSCRIPTION.
>> IF YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> STEVE ROBERT, ONE OF THE OWNERS.
>> GREAT. TELL US WHAT THE SITUATION IS MR. ROBERT.
>> THIS IS A 16.75-ACRE FACILITY.
THEY HAVE SEVEN BUILDINGS ON IT.
ONE OF THEM'S TO BE TORN DOWN.
ONE OF THEM IS JUST A LINK TWO SHARED, AND THE OTHER THREE, WE'RE GOING TO RENOVATE.
FILL OUT AN APPLICATION FOR SOMETHING HAS TO BE TURNED DOWN.
I DON'T KNOW A SHARED, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT EITHER.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE.
IT'S ONE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE ONE BUSINESS.
IS NOT GOING TO BE SEVEN DIFFERENT BUSINESSES.
THERE'S SEVEN BUILDINGS ON IT BUT TWO OF THEM ARE REALLY NOT BUILDINGS TO MOUNT ANYTHING.
THAT'S OUR CONCERN ABOUT FILLING OUT APPLICATIONS AND PAYING THE FEES FORM.
>> IF THEY'RE NOT APPLYING FOR AN ABATEMENT ON A SPECIFIC STRUCTURE, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO FILE A APPLICATION FOR THAT STRUCTURE.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE THE LEAN TO YOU'RE GOING TO TEAR IT DOWN, CORRECT?
>> ONE OF THEM, OKAY. BUT THE MAIN BUILDING IS THE ONLY ONE YOU'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY RESTORE?
>> WELL, ACTIONS COULD BE FIVE BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO RESTORE, BUT THE PROPERTY TAXES ARE ON ALL THE FACILITIES.
THEY'RE NOT DIVIDED, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WOULD YOU DETERMINE THEM.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONFUSION THERE, BUT THE WAY OUR RULES READ AT EACH STRUCTURE REQUIRES
[00:15:02]
A SET IS NOT BASED ON TAX ASSESSOR RECORDS, IS BASED ON THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES.I CAN SPECULATE ON WHY THE RULES ARE WRITTEN THE WAY THEY ARE BECAUSE PERHAPS MAYBE ONE BUILDING DESERVES RESTORATION MORE THAN ANOTHER, I'M SPECULATING, BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE WAY THE RULES READ RIGHT NOW FOR EACH BUILDING A SEPARATE APPLICATION SO THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY RATHER THAN IN GLOBAL.
I THINK WHAT THE BOARD IS WRESTLING WITH JUST LISTENING TO IT RIGHT NOW IS WHAT'S THE HOLDUP OF JUST FILING THE OTHER TWO APPLICATIONS?
>> WELL, WE DID THIS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO IN A BAYOU PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER IN GONZALEZ IS AN OLD DILAPIDATED SHOPPING CENTER.
WE RENOVATED IT. WE GOT A BOWLING ALLEY, MOVIE THEATER, 10, 12, AND WE JUST FILLED OUT ONE APPLICATION, I GUESS THAT WAS.
I GUESS THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
>> TELL ME, THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW, WHAT IS IT OR WHAT WAS IT I SHOULD SAY?
IN THE FRONT WAS THE RETAIL DO FOR BOATS, AND THE BACK WAS WAREHOUSES TO WAREHOUSE THE BOATS.
ANOTHER ONE PART OF IT WAS AN OLD MANUFACTURING BUILDING.
>> WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR THE RENOVATED PROPERTY?
>> MAKING AN RV TYPE OF STORAGE, MULTI-STORAGE FACILITY.
INCLUDING ALL THE BUILDINGS TOGETHER.
>> MR. MUELLER, DOES THAT GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE COLOR TO THE SITUATION?
>> GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MR.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE UPHOLD DECISION OF LED AND THE ORGANIZATION.
>> IF I CAN RESTATE IT, THE MOTION IS TO DENY THE SPECIAL REQUESTS AND REQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS.
THAT IS THE MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM DR. THOMPSON.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, FROM MR. ROBERTO, ANYTHING ELSE FROM YOU?
>> ABSOLUTELY. THERE BEING NO OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THAT CONCLUDES RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT.
>> MRS. ROSENBERG WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU NEXT MEETING.
>> I HAVE NINE NEW APPLICATIONS.
>> THIS IS THE ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM.
[6. Enterprise Zone Program – Joyce Metoyer]
PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THEM.>> 2018-0046 HUNT FOREST PRODUCTS, LLC, LASALLE PARISH.
2020-0405, LEGACY LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, JEFFERSON PARISH.
2020-0415, NOLA LOGISTICS, LLC, JEFFERSON PARISH.
2018-0165 PERFORMANCE CONTRACTORS INCORPORATED, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.
2018-0491 PERFORMANCE CONTRACTORS INCORPORATED, WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, 2021-0016, RICHES OF JEAN TILLY, LLC, ORLEANS PARISH.
2019-0367, SAVOIR SAUSAGE AND FOOD PROCESSING INCORPORATED, ST. LANDRY PARISH.
2020-0381 SECOND LINE LOGISTICS, LLC, JEFFERSON PARISH AND 2020-0280, TRIAD ELECTRIC AND CONTROL INCORPORATED, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ON THESE ENTERPRISE ZONE APPLICATIONS? I'M HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC? I'M HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES. NEXT.
CONTRACT 2019-0249, CARDIOVASCULAR INSTITUTE OF THE SOUTH IN TERREBONNE PARISH CHANGED TO CARDIOVASCULAR INSTITUTE OF THE SOUTH, LLC ON JANUARY 23RD, 2023.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS CHANGE? JUST A CHANGE OF NAME OR CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP?
[00:20:01]
>> THIS IS JUST A NAME CHANGE.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS TO APPROVE THE NAME CHANGE SECOND FROM MS. COLA.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I'M HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> AS A RESULT OF THE SCHEDULE ONE, OWNERS HAS CHANGED FROM 44-1 AND THE DOCUMENTATION IS ATTACHED.
>> THIS WOULD BE THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP THAT WE ARE SERVING AT THIS POINT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP? A MOTION FROM DR. WILSON, SECOND FROM MR. MILLER.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I'M HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THE SECOND SPECIAL IS ON AUGUST 2019, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SUBMITTED RESOLUTION NUMBER 54412, REQUESTING CENSUS TRACT BLOCK GROUPS SWAP OF 3601-3 TO 3601-1.
THE REQUEST WAS APPROVED AT THE JUNE 2020 BOARD MEETING.
HOWEVER, THE SWAP WAS REVERSED IN ERROR.
THIS IS BASICALLY A HOUSEKEEPING ISSUE OF MINE.
3601-1 SHOULD BE THE EXISTING CENSUS TRACT, BLOCK GROUP AND 3601-3 SHOULD BE THE PROPOSED NEW CENSUS TRACT AND BLOCK GROUP.
THEREFORE, THE CORRECT SWAP SHOULD BE 3601-1 TO 3601-3 AND THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE ATTACHED.
>> YOU'RE ASKING THE BOARD JUST TO APPROVE THIS TO CLEAN UP THE TYPO THAT WAS MADE.
>> MR. MOSS IS QUICKLY MAKING THE MOTION TO CLEAN UP YOUR MISTAKE.
[LAUGHTER] SECOND FROM MR. MILLER.
THIS IS THE REASON WE MAKE PENCILS WITH ERASERS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? THERE BEING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? I'M HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE Z. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, MS. CHANG. MR. HISEI.
[7. Industrial Tax Exemption – Kristin Cheng/Hud Usie]
>> LET'S START WALKING THROUGH THE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTIONS.
>> WE HAVE TWO NEW 2017 RULES, APPLICATIONS, 2018-0174 AIR LIQUID LARGE INDUSTRIES US, LP IN ASCENSION PARISH, AND 2017-0067-L, WESTROCK CP, LLC IN JACKSON PARISH.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM MS. COLA SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I'M HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE 15 POST YEAR 2018 RULES APPLICATIONS.
WE DO HAVE THREE DEFERRALS REQUESTED BY THE COMPANY.
THAT'S 2023-0059, APF RIVER PARTNERS, LLC IN JEFFERSON PARISH.
2021-0227, INFERNO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION IN CADDO PARISH AND 2021-0227-A INFERNO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION IN CADDO PARISH.
>> WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEFER THOSE THREE.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM MAYOR TOUPS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE.
THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> WE HAVE 2020-0524, ALEXANDER RYAN MARINE AND SAFETY, LLC OF LOUISIANA IN TERREBONNE PARISH.
2022-0460, ASAHI/AMERICA, INC IN ST. JAMES PARISH.
2018-0496 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. IN ASCENSION PARISH.
2022-0235-A LACC LLC US IN CALCASIEU PARISH.
2020-0348, LASALLE BIOENERGY, LLC IN LASALLE PARISH.
2021-0114 LASALLE BIOENERGY, LLC IN LASALLE PARISH.
2022-0465, LOUISIANA SPIRITS, LLC IN JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH.
2021-0538, LOUISIANA SUGAR REFINING, LLC IN ST. JAMES PARISH.
2023-0016, MEXICAN FLUOR INC. IN IBERVILLE PARISH,
[00:25:02]
2023-0017, MEXICAN FLUOR INC. IN IBERVILLE PARISH.2018-0047 STIRLE TAPE IN NEW ORLEANS, LLC IN BLACKMUN'S PARISH, AND 2020-0136 STIRLE TAPE IN NEW ORLEANS, LLC IN BLACKMUN'S PARISH.
>> VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THESE 2018 RULES APPLICATIONS.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. NASSER.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? MR. JONES, OUR GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IN ST. JAMES PARISH ON SUPPORTIVE TO TWO FROM ST. JAMES, ASAHI AND LSR. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I'M HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE THE PRE EO TIMELY RENEWALS.
20100198-C, SABINE PASS LNG LP IN CAMERON PARISH, 20110659-D, SABINE PASS LIQUEFACTION, LLC IN CAMERON PARISH, 20110659-E SABINE PASS LIQUEFACTION LLC IN CAMERON PARISH, AND 2015 1505 PT TRITON WEST LLC IN SAINT CHARLES PARISH.
>> [NOISE] WE HAVE THESE RENEWALS DATING BACK TO PRIOR TO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, SOME FOUR BILLION DOLLARS IN INVESTMENT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM DR. WILSON? 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.
>> THE NEXT ITEM IS EIGHT PRE EO LATE RENEWALS.
20160660 AIR LIQUID LARGE INDUSTRIES US LLP IN SAINT CHARLES PARISH.
DO I TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE?
>> NO. LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM AIR LIQUIDE? PLEASE COME FORWARD, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> GOOD MORNING BOARD. MY NAME IS DAVID NGO, I'M A DEAN DIRECTOR FOR PROPERTY TAX AT AIR LIQUIDE.
>> RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYTIME WE HAVE THESE LIGHT RENEWALS WE'RE NUMBER 1 CURIOUS WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS, WE WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CAN HAPPEN.
WE WANT TO MINIMIZE IS HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE FOR BOTH YOUR COMPANY AS FRANKLY AS WELL AS OTHER COMPANIES.
>> SURE. WE HAD A RETIREMENT AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER, AND ADDITION TO THAT, WE MOVE OUR NORTH AMERICA CORPORATE OFFICE FROM A PREVIOUS LOCATION.
IN ADDITION, WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH OUR PANDEMIC WORK ARRANGEMENT.
>> IT IS A PERFECT STORM OF EVENTS. I UNDERSTAND.
BOARD JUST TO REMIND YOU UNDER PRE EO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PRESCRIBED PENALTIES FOR LATE RENEWALS.
WE CAN EITHER APPROVE THE RENEWALS WITHOUT ANY PENALTY.
WE CAN APPROVE WITH A PENALTY OR CAN WE WE CAN DENY THE REQUEST FOR RENEWAL ALTOGETHER.
HISTORICALLY, IT HAS BEEN OUR CUSTOM THAT FOR EVERY YEAR LIGHT THAT IT'S BASICALLY A ONE YEAR PENALTY ON THE RENEWAL.
INSTEAD OF GETTING A FIVE YEAR RENEWAL, IT WOULD ONLY BE A FOUR YEAR RENEWAL IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.
WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD FOR THE AIR LIQUIDE SITUATION? WHAT IS PLEASURE?
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO RENEW WITH THE ONE-YEAR PENALTY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A ONE-YEAR PENALTY.
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.
>> THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO INVEST IN LOUISIANA.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE 20131175, DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, 20131176 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY EVERVILLE PARISH, 20141521 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY EVERVILLE PARISH,
[00:30:04]
20161431 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY EVERVILLE PARISH, 20161432 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, 20141522 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION SAINT CHARLES PARISH AND 20161444, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION IN SAINT CHARLES PARISH.>> WE WANT TO TAKE THE DOW'S SEPARATELY.
>> I BELIEVE THEY'RE THE SAME COMPANY.
[OVERLAPPING] I BELIEVE THEY'RE THE SAME COMPANY.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO BE SURE.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE FROM DOW CHEMICAL? GOOD MORNING AND IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY AND SPEAK INTO THE MIC SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN HEAR EVERYTHING.
>> YES, SIR. RONA DAGO, SENIOR ATTACHED LEADER FOR DOW CHEMICAL.
>> VERY GOOD. TELL US WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
>> IT ALL STEMS FROM THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE BEING POSTPONED FROM A 2018 APPROVAL TO THIS YEAR OF 2022.
WE DIDN'T GET SIGNATURES ON ALL OF THESE UNTIL SOMETIME LATE 2022 AND THEN WE WERE TOO LATE IN FILING AFTER THE GOVERNOR SIGNATURE.
YOU CAN'T RENEW UNTIL YOU GET THE SIGNATURE.
>> YOU DIDN'T GET THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE UNTIL WHEN?
>> SOME OF THEM WERE SEPTEMBER, SOME OF THEM ON NOVEMBER 30TH, AND A COUPLE OF THEN ON DECEMBER 15.
>> NOW THE ONES THAT WERE FILED IN DECEMBER, I WOULD TAKE THOSE OF THE EARLIER.
>> SORRY. THERE'S A TYPO WHEN TWO OF THEM ALL OF THEM INITIALLY EXPIRED 12/31 OF '22.
>> IF I REALIZED THERE WEREN'T 31 DAYS IN FEBRUARY.
>> I THINK THE ONE WAS CUT OFF.
>> MS. VICTORIA, THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE PENCILS WITH ERASERS.
[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. AGAIN, THAT THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE WAS LATE, BUT HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS A DELAY IN FILING FOR THE RENEWAL?
>> OUR PERSONNEL, WHO IS A CONSULTANT INCORPORATE THEY FILED IT WHEN THEY DID.
>> VERY GOOD. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? AGAIN, WE HAVE AN OPTION OF DENYING THE REPEAL ALTOGETHER, RENEWING WITHOUT PENALTY OR RENEWING WITH A ONE-YEAR PENALTY. WHAT IS THE PLEASURE?
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE AGAIN.
>> WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT WHEN THE GOVERNOR HAS TO APPROVE THE CONTRACTS AND APPARENTLY DID NOT GET TO THE COMPANY UNTIL LATE IN A FIVE-YEAR TERM.
NOW WHY? I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARILY THAT'S ABOVE MY PAY GRADE.
EVERYTHING'S ABOVE MY PAY GRADE [LAUGHTER] FOR THIS JOB.
BUT I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THERE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM BEING ABLE TO FOLLOW FOR RENEWAL.
WE JUST CAN'T PROCESS IT TILL WE HAVE A FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT, BUT THEY COULD HAVE STILL FILED TIMELY.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CONSULTANTS THAT WE HAVE DOING IT SAID THEY COULDN'T PUT IT IN THE SYSTEM.
>> THE MIC DIDN'T PICK UP WHAT YOU SAID.
>> I SAID THAT'S NOT CORRECT. THEY ARE ABLE TO FILE, I SAID LED.
WE JUST WON'T PROCESS IT AND PUSH IT THROUGH TO Y'ALL UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE A FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT.
>> LET'S BE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THIS CHRONOLOGY HERE.
WHEN WE SAY THE CONTRACT, WHICH CONTRACTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE INITIAL CONTRACT.
>> THE INITIAL CONTRACT GOES BACK AS FIVE YEARS OLD.
IF WE'RE IN A RENEWAL SITUATION, IS THIS CONTRACT FIVE YEARS OLD?
>> YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT WE DIDN'T GET THE GOVERNOR'S APPROVAL UNTIL FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS INTO A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT?
>> I BELIEVE SOME WERE JUST LEFT UNSIGNED.
>> SOME WERE JUST LEFT UNSIGNED.
I CAN'T TELL YOU WHY THAT HAPPENED.
>> THE LIGHT IN THE FOURTH QUARTER OF '22, WE FINALLY GET THE APPROVALS FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN FOR THE FIRST FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT, THAT'S DONE.
THEY GET THE NOTICE, AND FROM A PROCEDURE PERSPECTIVE FROM LEDS PERSPECTIVE,
[00:35:03]
AS SOON AS IT'S ENTERED INTO YOUR SYSTEM, THE RENEWAL CAN BE FILED.>> NO, PROCEDURALLY, THEY CAN FILE THE RENEWAL WHENEVER.
>> EVEN WITHOUT THE GOVERNOR SIGNATURE?
>> HOW CAN YOU RENEW SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET A CONTRACT?
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WE DON'T PROCESS IT UNTIL WE HAVE A CONTRACT AS AN LED.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THEY COULD HAVE FILED IT, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE PROCESSED IT UNTIL THE SO THAT YOU BASICALLY COULD HAVE HAD A RENEWAL SITTING IN THE WINGS UNTIL THE APPROVAL FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE CAME.
>> WITH A PROCESS THAT IMMEDIATELY IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAD TO WAIT TO THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE TO FILE THE RENEWAL.
>> OR AT THE VERY LEAST, WE HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN THE ETHERNET OF FASTLANE.
I DON'T. BUT NOW I BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
DOES THAT CLEAR UP YOUR QUESTION, MAYOR TOUPS?
>> I STILL HAVE A QUESTION HOW A CONTRACT SAT AROUND FOR FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS.
I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> SOME OF THESE WHEN THEY WERE INITIALLY APPROVED WHERE PAPER CONTRACTS AND THEN WE MIGRATED OVER TO FASTLANE NEXTGEN AND IT BECAME ELECTRONIC CONTRACTS.
BECAUSE THE COMPANY NEVER RETURNED THE PAPER CONTRACTS TIMELY, WE HAD TO ISSUE ELECTRONIC CONTRACTS TO BE SIGNED TOWARDS THE END OF THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY NEVER RETURNED TO PAPER CONTRACTS? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
>> WHEN WE HAD PAPER CONTRACTS, WE SENT A PAPER OR A DOCUMENT VERSION.
THEY HAD TO RETURN PAPER CONTRACT SIGNED BY THE COMPANY TO LED.
AT THAT POINT, LED WOULD SEND THE PAPER CONTRACT PHYSICALLY TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, BUT WE NEVER RECEIVED PAPER VERSIONS BACK FROM THE COMPANY, WHEN ORIGINALLY APPROVED, SO WE HAD TO RE-SEND THEM TO THE COMPANY VIA FASTLANE TODAY BECAUSE WE DON'T DO PAPER CONTRACTS ANYMORE.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FOUR-AND-A-HALF YEARS, SOME OF THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THE APPLICANT, I'M USING SAT ON THAT SOUNDS PEJORATIVE.
I DON'T MEAN IT, BUT FOR SOME REASON THE PAPER CONTRACTS WERE NOT RETURNED TO LED.
AT WHAT POINT DID YOU SWITCH OVER TO ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS? WHAT YEAR DID YOU DO THAT?
>> 2018. THAT WAS A HALF-YEAR INTO THIS THING.
>> I THINK IT WAS AROUND THE SAME TIME THEY SWITCHED.
I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF TIMING ON WHETHER IT WAS PAPER WAS SENT OUT, VERSES SIT BACK IN, OR IF IT WAS ELECTRIFIED.
>> THE IMPORTANT THING IS THE PICTURE THAT I'VE PAINTED THAT IT SAT AROUND THE GOVERNOR'S DESK IS NOT ACCURATE.
>> THAT'S NOT ACCURATE AT ALL.
THIS WAS INTERNAL SYSTEM THAT IT SAT.
>> THE PAPER CONTRACT PROBABLY SAT AND WHEN THEY REALIZE THEY DID NOT HAVE A FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT, WE HAD TO REISSUE AS AN ELECTRONIC CONTRACT.
>> SO THAT WE COULD GET A FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT.
>> THEN THEY EXECUTED THE ELECTRONIC VERSION.
THEN IT WENT TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE?
>> I'LL LIKE TO INTERJECT JUST A SECOND.
>> WE ALSO HAVE TWO MORE THAT WE ARE WAITING FOR GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE.
THAT'S BEEN LONGER THAN 90 DAYS.
THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE THAT'S TWO MORE AND IS NOT HERE TODAY, BUT WILL BE IN YOUR NEXT AGENDA.
>> SAME SITUATION. WHERE YOU DO NOT HAVE THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE TO GO FOR IT.
NOT HAVING A SIGNATURE DON'T PRECLUDE YOU FROM FILING.
MIKE, DID I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. YOU CAN ALWAYS FILE, WE JUST WON'T PROCESS IT, REVIEW IT.
MOVING ON TO Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE A FULLY EXECUTED.
>> CALLING THEN WOULD NOT MAKE THEM SUSCEPTIBLE TO ANY PENALTIES?
>> NO. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE THAT WE ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE COULD NOT FILE UNTIL WE HAD A SIGNED CONTRACT.
>> WHEN I WAS A VOLUNTEER GOVERNERS' DESIGNEE.
THEN THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNER SIGNATURE PRECLUDES YOU FROM FILING, IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE YOU FROM HAVING YOUR APPLICATION IN AN ORDERLY MANNER TO SUBMIT AS SOON AS YOU GET THE SIGNATURE, RIGHT?
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE RUN INTO UNDERSTANDING THE SYSTEM.
WE COULDN'T PUT OUR RENEWAL INTO THE SYSTEM UNTIL WE HAD THE CONTRACT SIGN.
NOW I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT OF THESE, THERE ARE SOME THAT WE RECEIVED IN SEPTEMBER.
WELL, WE DIDN'T, WE WERE LATE.
[00:40:02]
SOME WE RECEIVED NOVEMBER 30TH.WE HAD MAYBE TWO WEEKS THE FILE WE CAN EVEN GET ON AGENDA FOR DECEMBER WHICH WAS PUSHED TO I THINK JANUARY.
BUT THE ONES THAT WE WERE RECEIVING DECEMBER 15TH, WE HAD TO HAVE FILED AT THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY.
I HEARD COULD PROBABLY TELL ME THAT DUE DATE, BUT WE WERE ALSO NOT FILED UNTIL IT THINK FEBRUARY.
WE WERE SLIGHTLY LATE THERE TOO.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DID YOU WAIT TO GET THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE TO START YOUR APPLICATION?
>> I'M SORRY. MY QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF YOUR APPRECIATION FOR THE PROCESS, WHERE DID YOU GAIN THAT FROM? WAS IT FROM STAFF OR FROM YOUR CONSULTANT?
>> FROM THE REGULATIONS; THE RULES BEHIND IT.
>> YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO RENEW A CONTRACT.
>> MY QUESTION AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR, RONA, IS THAT IT IS THERE REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT YOU WOULD NOT RENEW A CONTRACT UNTIL YOU HAVE A FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT?
>> YOU DID NOT HAVE A FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT.
IT IS REASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT YOU DON'T RENEW A CONTRACT WITHOUT HAVING AN EXECUTED CONTRACT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. ALONG WITH WE'VE TALKED TO ALL THREE PARISHES AND THAT THERE TO UNDERSTANDING.
>> THAT IS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION.
>> YOU SAID IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU COULDN'T FILE FOR RENEWAL, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $15 MILLION IN TAX FORGIVENESS HERE, DID ANYBODY CALL LED AND DOUBLE-CHECK THIS?
>> I BELIEVE THE CONSULTANTS MADE CONTACT EITHER HURD OR SOMEONE IN LED.
I'M NOT. THAT THEY ARE CONSULTANTS OUT THERE IN MY CORPORATE OFFICE.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT TO BE SURE ABOUT IF YOU HAD THAT MUCH MONEY AT STAKE?
>> YEAH. THERE WAS A LOT OF STUFF DISCUSSED REGARDING THE MISSING CONTRACTS, THE FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACTS THAT WE NEEDED.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE MISUNDERSTANDING CAME FROM, BUT THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT DOESN'T PREVENT YOU FROM FILING A RENEWAL APPLICATION IN THE SYSTEM.
IF YOU KNEW THAT CONTRACT WAS GOING TO BE EXPIRED AFTER OR BEFORE IT WAS EXECUTED BY THE GOVERNOR, YOU COULD HAVE STILL FILED AN APPLICATION IN THE SYSTEM TO BE PROCESSED, ONCE YOUR FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT IS RECEIVED.
THE FACT THAT WE'RE HAVING TO CLIMB THIS FAR INTO THE WEEDS CONCERNS ME, BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CLIMB INTO THESE WEEDS.
HOW DOES ONE PREPARE AND SUBMIT A RENEWAL APPLICATION? IS IT A PURELY ELECTRONIC EXERCISE?
>> I'M SORRY. YES. FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU.
IF I GO INTO FASTLANE AND THERE IS NO CONTRACT, WHERE DO I FIND WHEN I'M RENEWING?
>> A PROJECT IN THE PROJECT NUMBER IS STILL LISTED IN THE PROJECT LISTS BECAUSE YOU HAD AN APPLICATION AND IT WAS FILED AND IT WAS BOARD APPROVED.
>> IF I GO INTO FASTLANE AND I FILL OUT THE APPLICATION, AND IT'S ALL ELECTRONIC.
THERE'S NO PAPER APPLICATION AT ALL. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I GO INTO FASTLANE AND I FILL OUT MY APPLICATION ONLINE, HAVE IT READY TO GO AND I HIT SEND.
>> I WILL TELL YOU [OVERLAPPING]
>> EVEN WITHOUT A CONTRACT BEING IN PLACE, IT WILL STILL ACCEPT THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL?
>> YES, SIR. A RENEWAL APPLICATION OPTION WILL NOT SHOW IF THE AFC AND PCR AREN'T FILED.
>> SORRY, AFFIDAVIT OF FINAL COST AND PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT.
IF THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN FILED, THE RENEWAL APPLICATION OPTION WILL NOT SHOW IN THE FORMS.
>> COULD IT BE THAT THOSE HAD NOT YET BEEN FILED?
>> WELL, I THINK I'M HEARING THEN IS THERE IS A CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> BUT TO FILE A RENEWAL APPLICATION, YOU MUST HAVE ALREADY FILED YOUR AFFIDAVIT OF FINAL COST AND PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT.
>> WHICH I BELIEVE THAT'S GENERALLY FILED AFTER THE CONTRACT.
[00:45:02]
>> I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PROCESS HERE.
HOW OFTEN IS THIS REOCCUR WHERE WE HAVE TO RENEW A RENEWAL IN PLACE THAT'S IN TIMELY, TRYING TO GET A TIMELY RENEWAL IN PLACE, BUT THE CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED.
IS THIS A COMMON OCCURRENCE FOR YOU GUYS?
>> NOT REALLY. IT ALL STEMS FROM THE FACT THAT THE PAPER CONTRACTS, WHEN WE WERE ISSUING CONTRACTS AND PAPER FORM THOSE WERE NEVER RETURNED TO US, AND WHEN THE COMPANY PICKED UP THE CONSULTANT, THE CONSULTANT WENT OVER THE VASELINE RECORDS, DETERMINED WE DON'T HAVE FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACTS.
CONTACTED KRISTEN AND I, AND WE SAID THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
YOU NEED TO GET AN ELECTRONIC CONTRACT ISSUED.
IT WAS DELAYED FROM THE FACT THAT WE NEVER HAD THE PAPER CONTRACTS ON FILE.
>> WE CAN ASSURE AS A BOARD HERE THAT THIS IS JUST A ONE-OFF BASED UPON A VERY EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION, PROBABLY CORRECT.
>> VERY FEW HAS FALLEN THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PAPER CONTRACT AND IT'S UP FOR RENEWAL.
WE'VE HAD COMPANIES THAT NEVER RETURNED PAPER CONTRACTS, BUT THEIR INITIAL FIVE YEARS WASN'T UP FOR RENEWAL WHEN THEY CONTACTED US.
>> YOU KEEP USING WORDS LIKE NEVER WHICH CONNOTES SOMETHING TO ME THAT IS APPARENTLY IF THE CONTRACT EXPIRATION DATE WAS 12/31/22, THAT MEANS THE CONTRACT INITIATION DATE WAS SOMETIME IN 2017.
IS THAT CORRECT? VASELINE CAME ON BOARD IN 2018.
>> VASELINE CAME ON BOARD IN 2018.
>> BASICALLY SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS IT.
>> YES. I THINK IT WAS MOST OF THEM WERE THREE OF 18.
THE APPLICATIONS WERE MOSTLY THREE OF 18.
>> HOW IS THE EXPIRATION DATE 12TH, 22.
THAT'S ONLY FOUR YEARS, LESS THAN FOUR YEARS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] SHE FILED THE APPLICATION IN MARCH OF 2018.
THE CONTRACT'S EFFECTIVE DATES WERE 12/31/2017.
>> THIS PAPER CONTRACT THAT NEVER GOT SUBMITTED, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT FOUR YEARS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX MONTHS.
THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN DECEMBER 17 AND MID-2018 WHEN VASELINE CAME ON BOARD.
SO THERE WAS A PERIOD OF ABOUT SIX MONTHS THIS PAPER CONTRACT DIDN'T GET SUBMITTED. RIGHT?
IF THERE WAS PAPER, THEY WEREN'T ACCEPTING IT AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME.
>> MY POINT IS WHEN YOU SAY WE NEVER GOT IT, I HAD IN MY MIND FOR FOUR YEARS IT WAS SITTING AROUND [OVERLAPPING]
>> CORRECT. THEY DIDN'T REACH OUT TO US UNTIL RECENT YEARS UNTIL 2022.
>> YOU'RE ANSWERING A QUESTION I DIDN'T ASK.
I'M FOCUSING ON THE FACT THAT THERE WASN'T A PAPER CONTRACT SITTING ON SOMEBODY'S DESK AT LED OR DOW FOR FOUR YEARS.
>> IT WAS ON DALLAS'S DESK BECAUSE WE NEVER GOT IT BACK.
WE DIDN'T GET IT BACK, SO WE COULDN'T SEND IT TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE JUST BECAUSE VASELINE'S NEXT-GEN LAUNCHED IN JULY OF 2018, WE DIDN'T AUTOMATICALLY SWITCH ALL OF THE PAPER CONTRACTS THAT WERE OUT WAITING FOR SIGNATURE TO ELECTRONIC.
WE STARTED ELECTRONIC GOING FORWARD FROM JULY OF 18.
>> WHEN DID YOU REALIZE YOU DID NOT HAVE A CONTRACT FROM DOW AND YOU CONTACTED THEM? WHEN I WAS THAT.
>> THEIR CONSULTANT CONTACTED US.
>> BEGINNING OF LAST YEAR. PROBABLY.
>> IT DID SIT AROUND FROM 2017 TO AT LEAST 2022 WHEN THE CONSULTANT GOT ENGAGED.
>> YES. I BELIEVE IT WAS 2018 NOT '17.
>> I'M FRUSTRATED ABOUT 12 DIFFERENT LEVELS RIGHT NOW.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE TO HANG MY HAT ON AND I DON'T KNOW.
I GUESS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OR YOU'LL IS THOROUGHLY CONFUSED AS I AM.
>> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION WHENEVER IS MS. CROPPER.
>> MR. MAYOR AT LEAST THAT WILL GIVE US SOMETHING TO WORK FROM. LET'S DO THAT.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATIONS WITHOUT PENALTY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. CHAIR, SECOND FROM PRESTON KENIS.
WE GOT ANOTHER SECOND FROM DR. THOMPSON.
[00:50:03]
WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE WITHOUT PENALTY.DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> WE HAVE ONE, TWO, MAKE THE MOTION CARRIES.
ALL IN FAVOR. WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT AGAIN. WE GOT UP.
WE HAVE A MOTION THAT CARRIES WITH TWO NO VOTES.
THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED, RENEWAL APPLICATION IS APPROVED WITHOUT PENALTY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE HAVE ONE CHANGE IN NAME ONLY A CONTRACT AMENDMENT REQUEST.
THE NEW NAME IS HYDROGENATED LLC.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS CHANGE IN NAME?
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
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.
>> I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE MISSED THE TWO UNION CARBIDE CORPORATIONS.
UNION CARBIDE IS PART OF DOW SO WE WERE TAKING ALL OF THOSE.
>> DID YOU MAKE THE MOTION, WAS THAT YOUR INTENT WITH YOUR MOTION?
>> [LAUGHTER] YES. I APOLOGIZE.
>> WE HAVE ONE CHANGE IN LOCATION CONTRACT AMENDMENT REQUEST, IRIS SOLAR LLC, 2018-0147.
THE ORIGINAL LOCATION ON THE CONTRACT WAS 30.78184 FROM NEGATIVE 90.19536 IN A FRANKLINTON, LOUISIANA 70438 IN WASHINGTON PARISH.
THE NEW LOCATION WHICH IT'S NOT MOVING.
WE'RE JUST GETTING A STREET ADDRESS ON THE CONTRACT IS 303 CC ROAD, FRANKLINTON, LOUISIANA 70438 IN WASHINGTON PARISH.
>> ACTUALLY THIS IS A CHANGE IN ADDRESS, NOT A CHANGE IN LOCATION.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
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.
>> WE HAVE FOUR TRANSFER OF TAX EXEMPTION CONTRACT AMENDMENTS, ORION INSTRUMENTS LLC 2013-0525, 2014-0269, 2015-0639, AND 2016-0763.
THEY ARE TRANSFERRING TO AMITECH MAGNETRON USA, LLC IN EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE TRANSFERS? MOTION FROM MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM MAYOR TOUPS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? MOTION CARRIES.
IS THIS THE SAME ORION INSTRUMENTS THAT WAS IN THE NEWS YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE ABOUT CLOSING THE LOCATION?
>> YES. WE HAVE NOTIFIED THEM THAT THESE CONTRACTS WILL BE CANCELED DUE TO NON-MANUFACTURING, BUT THEY NOTIFIED US INSTEAD THEY'LL BE MANUFACTURING THROUGH 1231 OF 23.
GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
>> WE HAVE TWO CANCELLATION OF CONTRACTS AVANT ORGANICS LLC 2021-0035.
COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION REPEATS PARISH AND CAN BE MACHINE WORKS LLC 2017-0624, COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION; TERABONE AND PARISH.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CANCELLATION FOR DR. WILSON, SECOND FROM MR. MUELLER.
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.
>> WE HAVE FOUR SPECIAL REQUESTS, BUT WE HAVE A REQUEST FROM CITADEL COMPLETIONS LLC TO DEFER THE SPECIAL REQUESTS FOR 2018-0199, 2018-0199-8, AND 2018-0199-B.
>> HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
[00:55:03]
>> IN ORDER TO COVER THE A AND B CONTRACT PHASES WHICH WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR.
>> FORGIVE ME I WAS TOO BUSY READING AND NOT TO LISTEN. THAT WOULD HELP.
WOULDN'T IT? WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION? A MOTION, MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM DR. WILSON, ALL IN FAVOR.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENT? I'M SO FLUSTERED NOW.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? THERE IS NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
>> WE HAVE A SPECIAL REQUEST FROM WEYERHAEUSER AND OUR COMPANY CONTRACT 2020-0065.
THEY'RE REQUESTING TO AMEND THEIR EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT FOR THIS CONTRACT TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL YEAR TO THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF ASSETS COMING INTO SERVICE.
THERE WERE UNFORESEEN SUPPLY CHAIN DELAYS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE PROJECT PERIOD THAT WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN FILING THEIR FRONT-END APPLICATION IN 2021.
>> DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE, MORE HAUSER? GOOD MORNING. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> RACHEL PROCTOR, FINANCE AND PLANNING MANAGER.
>> DINO ORR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGER.
TELL US WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX.
>> I MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX PART.
>> WHOEVER IS THE APPROPRIATE PERSON, I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT.
>> WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DEFER IT, ARE WE???
>> NO, THE EXHIBIT A HAS A SECTION 4.02 THAT LAYS OUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE FILING AND THEY ONLY ACCOUNTED FOR THE YEARS THAT ASSETS WERE GOING TO GO INTO SERVICE.
NOW THAT THE PROJECT IS DELAYED, WE NEED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF COMPLIANCE TO THE CHART IN SECTION 4.02.
>> WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN THE PROJECT?
>> THE PART OF THE PROJECT IS A CONTROL UPGRADE.
THERE'S ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS THAT WE'VE NOT RECEIVED YET FROM THE VENDOR.
THAT PROJECT CAN'T BEGIN UNTIL THOSE COMPONENTS ARE RECEIVED.
>> BUT THIS IS A SUPPLY CHAIN AND HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON NOW?
>> OUR PLANNED INSTALLATION DATE WAS THE BEGINNING OF Q4 OF 2022.
>> YOU STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE COMPONENTS?
>> NO, THEY STILL HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED.
>> IS THE ENTIRE FACILITY NOT IN OPERATION WAITING FOR THE COMPONENTS?
>> IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE FACILITY.
IT'S ONE OF FIVE PRESSES THAT WE HAVE.
>> IF YOU'VE GOT FOUR OUT OF FIVE ARE WORKING, HOW DO WE HANDLE ADDING ANOTHER YEAR ONLY ON ONE INOPERABLE?
>> I THINK THIS WAS A CONTRACT FOR AN OVERALL PROJECT.
THAT PORTION IS JUST THE PORTION THAT'S NOT COMPLETE YET.
THAT'S WHERE IT PUTS ASSETS INTO SERVICE LATER, WHICH NEEDS AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF COMPLIANT.
>> BUT THIS IS WHAT I'M WRESTLING WITH.
>> THERE HAVE BEEN PHASED APPLICATIONS FILED FOR OTHER PORTIONS THAT DID GO TO [OVERLAPPING].
THIS IS FOR THE REMAINDER, YES.
>> THAT WAS MY CONFUSION. MS. BOATNER, CAN YOU?
>> RHONDA BOATNER, DDA CONSULTANTS.
THIS PROJECT WAS TO ADD A NEW OR PRESS LOT PRESS AND THAT THEY'D GOTTEN PART OF IT ONLINE IN SERVICE, BUT THEY'RE WAITING ON THIS OTHER PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.
WE'VE DONE PHASE APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE PREVIOUS YEAR'S ASSETS.
>> WE'RE NOT TACKING FOUR OR FIVE YEARS ON STUFF THAT'S ALREADY OPERATIONAL.
>> GOT IT. THAT WAS MY CONCERN.
>> IT'S JUST A DELAY IN THEM RECEIVING THESE LAST FEW COMPONENTS THAT WE WERE EXPECTING TO RECEIVE LAST YEAR AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN RECEIVED YET.
>> THE EXTENSION WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THIS ONE THAT'S NOT YET AN OPERATION.
>> THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO UNDERSTAND.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS TO APPROVE.
>> HAVE A SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?
>> HEARING NONE, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
[01:00:04]
HEARING NONE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.>> NEXT, WE HAVE NON-COMPLIANT CONTRACTS FOLLOWING THE 2017 ITEP RULES.
WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT, 2018-0076 FOR KEROTEST MANUFACTURING COOPERATION IN [INAUDIBLE] PARISH, THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT FOR THE 2021 YEAR REQUIRED THE COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN 185 JOBS WITH 634,890 IN NEW JOB PAYROLL, 155 JOBS WERE TO BE RETAINED, 30 NEW JOBS WERE TO BE CREATED.
THE RETAIN JOBS PAYROLL WAS TO BE 4,468,000.
THE ACTUAL JOBS FOR THE REPORT IN HERE WHERE 86 JOBS WITH 4,085,963 IN PAYROLL.
THE PARISH, THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE SHERIFF DID NOT RESPOND WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE TOWN OF MANSURA ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, STATING AT THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING, MAYOR PICKETT AND THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN DECIDED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT.
MOTION WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
>> WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE FROM KEROTEST.
PULL THE MIKE CLOSE TO YOUR MOUTH AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS CHRIS WHITE.
I'M A CFO OF KEROTEST MANUFACTURING CORPORATION.
>> YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE OVERALL PROJECT.
WE BEGAN THIS PROJECT IN 2018.
IN 2018, WE INVESTED $5,309,000 IN OUR PLANT IN MANSURA.
WE ALSO HAD REVENUE OF APPROXIMATELY $41,000 AND $750,000.
WE ALSO AT THAT PERIOD, EMPLOYED 163 EMPLOYEES IN MANSURA.
IN 2019, WE HAD A NUMBER OF CONTRACTS THAT WERE DELAYED OR CANCELED, AND WE SUFFERED A REDUCTION IN OUR OVERALL REVENUE OF ABOUT $13 MILLION OR ABOUT 32% OF OUR GROSS REVENUE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
WE STABILIZED IN 2019 AND THEN THE PANDEMIC HIT IN 2020.
>> IN 2020, AGAIN WE STABILIZED OUR REVENUE AT ABOUT 28 MILLION DOLLARS, BUT WE DID INCREASE OUR EMPLOYMENT BACK TO 127 EMPLOYEES.
IN 2021, WE CONTINUE TO RECOVER.
OUR REVENUE GREW TO ABOUT $35 MILLION.
WE AGAIN HAD 127 EMPLOYEES, BUT WE ALSO HAD 49 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACT TO HIRE OR CONTRACT OF PERMANENT.
OUR PREFERENCE IS TO BRING PEOPLE INTO EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES TO REDUCE OUR OVERHEAD COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH HIRING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
IF YOU ADD OUR FULL-TIME AND OUR CONTRACT EMPLOYEES, AT THE END OF 2021, WE HAD 175 EMPLOYEES.
IN 2022, WE CONTINUE TO RECOVER.
OUR REVENUE GREW TO A 39 MILLION FOR YEAR 1.
WE WERE STILL BY 5.5% SHORT OF WHAT OUR RECORD WAS IN 2018.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAD A TOTAL HEADCOUNT OF 171 EMPLOYEES.
THEY INCLUDED 161 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES, AND ANOTHER 10 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES.
GOING INTO 2023, WE'RE VERY OPTIMISTIC.
WE'RE ON PACE FOR A RECORD YEAR.
WE ANTICIPATE REVENUE BEING ABOUT $59 MILLION THROUGH A COMBINATION OF REDUCTION OF OUR RECORD BACKLOG.
PRICING INCREASES, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PASS TO OUR CUSTOMERS AND USING A SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
OUR TARGET FOR 2023 IS AGAIN IS $59 MILLION IN GROSS REVENUE AND A TOTAL EMPLOYMENT LEVEL.
[01:05:02]
OF 203 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES AND EIGHT TEMPORARY OR CONTRACT OR HIRE EMPLOYEES.WE ANTICIPATED YEAR-END OF 211 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN MISSOURI.
WE EXPECT THE HIRING PROCESS TO BEGIN IN MAY CONTINUE THROUGH JULY.
WE ARE THREE PRIMARY PRODUCT LINES ON INDUSTRIAL GAS VALVES, INSULATING JOINTS AND ELECTROFUSION FITTINGS.
WE SERVE AS A GAS INDUSTRY PRIMARILY IN THE DISTRIBUTION, SO WE DO A LOT WITH UTILITIES AND DISTRIBUTORS.
>> GOING INTO 2019, YOU WERE STILL BELOW.
>> IN 2019 IS WHEN WE RAN INTO DIFFICULTIES.
WE HAD A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT WERE CANCELED AND IT RESULTED IN APPROXIMATELY 1/3 REDUCTION OF OUR GROSS REVENUE.
>> WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE PROJECTS?
>> WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT VISIBILITY INTO OUR CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNTS.
ALL WE KNOW THAT THEY WERE CANCELED.
THEN WE GOT INTO THE COVID PERIOD WITH '21 AND '22.
WE DID BEGIN TO SEE STRENGTHENING OF BACKLOG IN LATE '21 AND CONTINUING INTO '22.
IN FACT, WE FINISHED WITH A RECORD BACKLOG AT THE END OF '22 FOR APPROXIMATELY $18 MILLION, WHICH WAS AN ALL-TIME RECORD FOR US.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE SO OPTIMISTIC IN '23 OF HITTING OUR REVENUE GOAL.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, OUR OPTIONS HERE ARE, AGAIN, ANYTIME WE HAVE A NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUE, WE SEND THESE TO THE LOCALS FOR THEIR INPUT.
THE POLICE JURY, SCHOOL BOARD, AND SHERIFF, HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO PROVIDE THAT INPUT.
THE TOWN OF MISSOURI HAS AND THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT.. WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? MR. MUELLER.
SOMETHING I DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE APPLICATION WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US SAYS 185 JOBS, AND ZERO CREATED OR RETAINED, AND I JUST HEARD THIS GENTLEMAN SAY THERE'S GOING TO BE 203 JOBS.
>> I WAS LOOKING TO SEE IF I WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG PIECE OF PAPER.
>> BUT EITHER 171 OR SOMETHING RIGHT NOW, SO THAT'S STILL A LOT MORE THAN ZERO.
>> THE WAY THERE EXHIBITED AGREEMENT IS WRITTEN AS IT OUTLINES RETAINED NUMBER OF JOBS WHICH IS 155, AND A NEW JOBS WHICH IS 30.
THE PAYROLL YOU SEE 634,890 IS FOR THE 30 NEW JOBS.
THAT IS HOW THEIR CHART IS OUTLINED IN SECTION 4.02 OF THE EXHIBITED AGREEMENT.
FOR THE 2021 YEAR, THEIR TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTIVE JOBS WHERE 86 JOBS WITH 4,085,963 IN PAYROLL.
THEY JUST DIDN'T HIT THE THRESHOLD TO WHERE WE CAN START COUNTING THE NEW JOBS, WHICH IS WHY AT 00 ON THE SUMMARY.
>> THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTION, MR. MUELLER.
WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? THE CHAIR HAS AN OPINION WHICH I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHARE [LAUGHTER] MR. MUELLER, DO YOU?
>> FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT HERE.
I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WAS IT THE TOWN OF MISSOURI VOTED TO TERMINATE?
>> THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION TOO.
NOT TOO OFTEN THAT A MUNICIPALITY HAS A SAY, SO MISSOURI, DO THEY HAVE AD VALOREM TAX APPARENTLY THAT THEY HAVE A VOICE? BECAUSE USUALLY IT'S AT THE PARISH LEVEL.
I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY ARE IN TOWN LIMITS, SO THEY DO HAVE A VOICE.
THAT'S ALL THAT HE WROTE ON HIS LETTER.
>> TO YOUR POINT THE MAYOR, THEY HAVE A VOICE WHETHER OR NOT THEY COLLECT AD VALOREM TAXES, ANOTHER ISSUE ENTIRELY.
THEY MAY ONLY COLLECT SALES TAX AND THEY STILL HAVE A VOICE.
I GUESS THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, IF MISSOURI CANCELS THIS ASSETS TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT AS TO THE TOWN OF MISSOURI IS IT A NO HARM, NO FOUL? I DON'T KNOW IF MISSOURI HAS AD VALOREM TAXES OR NOT.
>> WE CAN'T CANCEL A CONTRACT JUST FOR ONE MUNICIPALITY [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE CAN'T JUST CANCEL ALL PORTION OF A CONTRACT..
>> WE CANCEL IT FOR EVERYBODY.
>> THE OTHERS DON'T SEEM TO CARE.
[01:10:03]
>> COULD NOT HAVE PUT IT MORE SUCCINCTLY, MR. MUELLER [LAUGHTER].
>> I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR OPINION, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT BOTHER ME MORE, BUT IN THIS CONTEXT THERE'S VERY LITTLE THAT BOTHERS ME MORE WHEN WE ASK MUNICIPALITIES AND PARISHES AND SCHOOL BOARDS AND SHERIFFS TO RENDER OPINIONS AND THEY SIMPLY IGNORE US.
OR RIGHT SECOND TO THAT IS WHEN THEY DEFER TO US.
WE WERE ASKING OPINIONS BECAUSE WE WANT THEIR FEEDBACK AND WE'RE UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM FOR OCTET, WE'RE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THEIR INPUT, BUT THEY'VE CHOSEN NOT TO GIVE IT TO US.
IN MY MIND, THAT SIMPLY MEANS THEY DON'T CARE.
IF THEY DON'T CARE, THEN WHY SHOULD I? [LAUGHTER] I HATE TO BE THAT, BUT THAT'S THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT IT. MR. MUELLER.
>> I'M IN THE SAME PLACE. I WILL ALWAYS LEAN TO HONORING THE WISHES OF THE MUNICIPALITIES, AND IF THEY HAD WEIGHED IN, I THINK I WOULD BE INCLINED TO FOLLOW THEIR WISHES.
BUT LIKE YOU, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES DIDN'T WEIGH IN.
>> AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE I'M STAYING BECAUSE WE FINALLY GOT SOMEBODY THAT HAS SAID WHAT THEIR VOICE IS.
I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW IF MUELLER HAS AD VALOREM TAXES, I REALLY WOULD.
>> REALLY THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME TO KNOW.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE, JUST LIKE ME, I'M VERY INVOLVED WITH MY PARENTS, OF COURSE, AND SO I HAVE MY VOICE WITH THEM, BUT I REALLY.
>> BECAUSE TRULY, GUYS, HERE WE ARE.
IF MISSOURI HAS NO AD VALOREM TAXES AND WE SAY THEY BOTHERED TO TELL US AND WE OUGHT TO FOLLOW WHAT THEY DO, BUT THEY DON'T COLLECT AD VALOREM TAXES, SO NO HARM, NO FOUL FOR THEM, BUT YET THEY'VE JUST KILLED IT FOR EVERYBODY ELSE AND FOR THIS COMPANY.
MS. COLA, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, CAN WE DIFFER MAKING A DECISION TO UNTIL WE'RE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IF MISSOURI IS.
>> YES, WE CAN DO THAT OR WE CAN HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT. IS THAT YOUR MOTION?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. COLA TO DIFFER.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE SIMPLY NEED TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION AND THIS WOULD COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.
I HATE FOR YOU TO MAKE ANOTHER TRIP, BUT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO DO SO.
IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO TALK TO YOUR LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES ON THEIR WISHES AND DESIRES AS WELL.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DEFER ANY OTHER 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.
>> YES INDEED. KRISTEN, JUST SOMEBODY NEEDS TO RUN DOWN THE ISSUE OF AD VALOREM TAXES.
>> WELL, CONTACT THE ASSESSOR.
>> THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT, 2018 0075, FOR LAPCO MANUFACTURING, INC. IN ST. MARY PARISH, THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2019, 2020, AND 2021 REPORTING PERIODS.
THE EXHIBIT A REQUIRED THE COMPANY CREATE AND RETAIN SEVEN JOBS WITH 175,000 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED FOR 2019 WAS 11 JOBS WITH $302,131 IN PAYROLL.
THE FILING AS NON-COMPLIANT DUE TO THE LATE FILING ONLY.
THE COMPLIANCE WAS DUE SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2021, BUT NOT RECEIVED UNTIL JUNE 22ND OF 2022.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED FOR THE 2020 YEAR WAS TWO JOBS WITH $75,934 IN PAYROLL.
THE FILING IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE JOBS TO PAYROLL IN THE LATE FILING.
THE FILING WAS DUE SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2021, BUT NOT RECEIVED UNTIL JUNE 22ND, 2022.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED FOR THE 2021 YEAR, WERE SEVEN JOBS WITH $116,685 IN PAYROLL.
THIS FILING IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE PAYROLL PORTION ONLY AND THE LATE FILING.
THE DUE DATE WAS APRIL 30TH, 2022, BUT IT WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL JUNE 22, 2020.
[01:15:03]
THREE LOCALS, THE PARISH COUNCIL, THE SHERIFF IN THE CITY OF MORGAN CITY, DID NOT RESPOND.THE SCHOOL BOARD SUBMITTED A RECOMMENDATION STATING IN A UNANIMOUS DECISION, THE ST. MARY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD APPROVED A MOTION TO DEFER ANY DECISION REGARDING THE COMPANY'S NON-COMPLIANCE AT LOUISIANA BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
>> DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM LAPCO MANUFACTURING? GOOD MORNING. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE?
>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS JANE WIN, THE NEW CFO OF LAPCO.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHAT DO YOU ALL MANUFACTURE?
>> WE ARE MANUFACTURING FR WHICH IS FIRE-RESISTANT CLOTHING FOR OILFIELDS FOR ELECTRICAL COMPANIES.
TELL US WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE IT APPEARS AS THOUGH IN 2019 YOU MET YOUR JOB AND PAYROLL REQUIREMENTS.
TELL ME FIRST ABOUT WHY THE LATE FILINGS.
>> THE LATE FILING FOR ALL OF THOSE THREE YEARS BECAUSE WE HAVE A TRANSITION IN THE LEADERSHIP, THE OWNERS, AND ALSO THE CEO AND THE CFO SIDE OF THE CONTRACT IN FEBRUARY 2019.
BUT THEY STEPPED OUT IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019 AND THE INFORMATION WASN'T PASSED ALONG.
THOUGH I WASN'T AWARE OF IT UNTIL SOMEWHERE IN MARCH OR JUNE 2022 WHEN HART CONTACTED US.
>> IN 2019, JOBS AND PAYROLL WERE FINE, YOU SIMPLY HAD A LATE FILING APPARENTLY DUE TO THE TRANSITION.
TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED IN 2020 AND 2021.
>> IN 2020, THAT'S WHEN COVID HIT OUR SALES DROPPED 25%.
WE TRIED TO MAINTAIN OUR EMPLOYEES AND KEEP THEM ON STAFF, BUT WE CAN ONLY PAY THEM FOR UP TO 30 HOURS.
THAT DISQUALIFIES THEM FROM BEING FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES.
THAT HURT THE COUNT AND ALSO HURT THE PAYROLL NUMBERS.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. IN 2021, I'LL SAY I'LL GET BACK UP TO A 29% INCREASE, AND WE DID CREATE SOME NEW JOBS, BUT THOSE JOBS WERE ADDED IN THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2021.
THAT EXPLAINS WHY WE HAVE ENOUGH NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BUT DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PAYROLL BECAUSE THOUGH WERE ADDED LATER ON DURING THE YEAR.
>> WE SEE WHERE WE ARE WITH LATE FILINGS DUE TO TRANSITION AND LEADERSHIP, AND THEN 2020 AND 2021, LARGELY RELATED, IT SOUNDS LIKE COVID AND THE CUTBACKS THERE.
WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE, AND BY THE WAY, EVERYBODY HAS EITHER NOT RESPONDED OR DEFERRED TO US.
WHATEVER WE DO IS WRITE TO Y'ALL.
[LAUGHTER] I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR NO PENALTY TO APPROVE AND NO PENALTY.
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. WILSON.
I WANT A SECOND. SECOND FROM MR. VARNAME.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT FOR LASALLE BIOENERGY, LLC, 2017, 0239.
IN LASALLE PARISH, THEY'RE NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2019, 2020, AND 2021 REPORTING PERIODS.
EXHIBIT A REQUIRES THAT THE COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN 37 JOBS WITH 1,742,300 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS THAT WERE CREATED IN 2019 WERE 19 JOBS AND 1,398,278 IN PAYROLL.
THIS FILING IS NON-COMPLIANT DUE TO NOT MEETING THE JOB'S PAYROLL AND FOR LATE FILING.
IN 2020, THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED WERE 26 JOBS AND 1,675,171 IN PAYROLL.
THIS FILING IS NON-COMPLIANT ONLY DUE TO NOT MEETING THE JOBS.
THE PAYROLL DIDN'T MEET THE 90% THRESHOLD OF REQUIRED PAYROLL.
IN 2021, THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED WERE 19 JOBS AND 1,505,563 IN PAYROLL.
[01:20:03]
THIS FILING IS NON-COMPLIANT DUE TO NOT MEETING JOBS AND PAYROLL.LED DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM THE LASALLE POLICE JURY, THE SCHOOL BOARD, NOR THE SHERIFF.
HOWEVER, WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE PARISH ASSESSOR STATING I HAVE REVIEWED THE NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE REFERENCED ABOVE.
I ALSO DISCUSSED THESE ISSUES AT GREAT LENGTH WITH LASALLE BIOENERGY, THE LASALLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, THE LASALLE PARISH POLICE JURY, AND THE LASALLE PARISH SHERIFF COLLECTIVELY, THEY HAVE ALL DECIDED TO GIVE NO RESPONSE.
THIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A NEGATIVE RESPONSE.
ALL LOCAL PARTIES ARE PLEASED LASALLE BIOMASS HAS LOCATED HERE AND LOOK FORWARD TO EXPANSIONS IN THE FUTURE.
>> DO WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE FROM LASALLE BIOENERGY? STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY.
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS BECKY POULIN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE PROJECTS.
>> RONLIND FLORY, DDA CONSULTANTS.
>> THANK YOU. TELL US WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
>> FIRST I'LL START WITH THE LATE FILING.
THIS WAS BEFORE WE HAD ENGAGED DDA CONSULTANTS.
WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE WERE LATE AND WE HAVE SINCE ENGAGED DDA AND WE WILL PLAN TO NOT BE LATE AGAIN. [LAUGHTER]
>> THEN THE JOBS, MS. RONLIND.
>> MIC A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE MOUTH.
>> THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING WHEN LASALLE PREPARED THEIR APPLICATION.
WHEN THEY PREPARED THE APPLICATION, DDA WASN'T ASSOCIATED WITH THEM AT THIS TIME AND THEY FELT THEY WERE GOING TO HIRE THE 37 NEW JOBS THAT THEY PUT ON THEIR APPLICATION.
THEY FELT THAT THEIR BASELINE WAS GOING TO BE 28 EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY PURCHASED THE FACILITY FROM GERMAN PELLETS IN APRIL 2017.
THE CONTRACT STARTS APRIL 2017 AND LED HAS REQUIRED THEM TO HAVE THE BASELINE WORKSHEET COMPLETED WITH THE GERMAN PELLETS SUIT OF REPORTS USING THE FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO APRIL FROM GERMAN PELLETS HEADCOUNT FOR THOSE PRIOR FOUR MONTHS, AND THE MEDIAN BASELINE COMES OUT TO 52 EMPLOYEES.
ALSO, THOSE HEAD COUNTS INCLUDE IT EMPLOYEES THAT THEY WERE TERMINATING DUE TO THE SALE ABOUT TO OCCUR.
LASALLE DID NOT HAVE EMPLOYEES UNTIL APRIL OF 2017.
THEY DID TAKE 28 EMPLOYEES FROM GERMAN PELLETS AND THEY ARE VERY AWARE THAT THOSE 28 EMPLOYEES ARE NOT NET NEW JOBS.
THEY CONSIDER THOSE BASELINE EMPLOYEES.
WHEN LASALLE PREPARED THEIR APPLICATION, THEY FELT THEIR BASELINE WOULD BE 28 AND THAT THEY WOULD CREATE THE 37 NET NEW EACH YEAR.
BUT BY THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS PROCESSED AND THESE COMPLIANCE REPORTS OR DO THAT IS WHEN IT WAS ALL FINALIZE THAT THE BASELINE WAS 52 INSTEAD OF 28.
THE LASALLE WAS STILL HAVING TROUBLES FEELING THAT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY CORRECT.
BUT GOING FORWARD, THAT IS WHY THEIR HEAD COUNT IS LOWER THAN THEIR ANTICIPATED 37 BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THAT 52 BASELINE RATHER THAN THE 28 BASELINE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH.
WHAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IS IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THAT 37 JOBS IS WHAT'S IN THE CONTRACT.
>> WELL, THAT'S OVER THE 52. THAT'S 37 NEW.
>> THIRTY SEVEN NEW JOBS OVER THE 52.
>> I WAS SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HIRE AN ADDITIONAL NET NEW 37 EACH YEAR AND THEY ARE COMPLETELY HAPPY AND OKAY WITH THEIR EXHIBIT A BEING LIKE THAT.
>> MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THEN.
WHEN WE SAY WHEN YOU HAVE ACTUAL JOB CREATION AT 19 FOR 2019 THAT MEANS YOU HAD 52 PLUS 19.
>> IF YOU GO BACK TO YOUR INTERPRETATION OF 37 WAS GOING TO BE THE BASELINE. I UNDERSTAND.
[01:25:04]
THE PAYROLL IS THE SAME SITUATION.THE ADDITIONAL PAYROLL IS THE SAME SITUATION TIED TO A DIFFERENT NUMBER BEING THE BASELINE.
>> WELL, THE 37 EMPLOYEES, IF THEY COULDN'T GET THE 37 EMPLOYEES, THAT THEY FEEL THAT THEY WILL MAKE THE PAYROLL.
>> HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS THE SITUATION WITH REQUIRING THE GERMAN PELLETS 52 NUMBER.
WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT? WHY DID WE REQUIRE THAT NUMBER RATHER THAN THEIR OWN BASELINE NUMBER 37? DO YOU KNOW.
>> I BELIEVE IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHEN THE EXHIBIT A WAS BEING DRAFTED.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR TAM BOURGEOIS WHO'S NO LONGER HERE, BUT I THINK LOOKING BACK AT A CORRESPONDENCE FROM BACK THEN, I THINK THAT WAS SOMETHING SHE HAD PICKED OUT.
>> LASALLE HAS TRIED TO ARGUE THAT BASELINE FROM DAY 1, WHEN THEY FOUND THAT OUT, FEEL THEY'VE ENGAGED US AND WE HAVEN'T HAD IT.
>> WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF TAX ASSESSORS LETTER IS CORRECT, THE PARISH ENTITIES ARE PLEASED WITH THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING AND IT'S PLEASED WITH WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.
ADHERING TO THE JONES COROLLARY THAT NO RESPONSE MEANS, I DON'T CARE.
THAT MAY NOT BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE HERE, BUT I THINK GIVEN WHERE WE ARE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT PENALTY.
>> HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS, HAVE A SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> JIM TO DO GOOD WORK AND LASALLE.
>> WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT FOR MOUSSA USA, LLC, 2017 0070 AND TALENT INDUSTRIAL LLC, 2017 0234 AND ASCENSION PARISH.
THEY'RE NOT COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
TALENT INDUSTRIAL IS THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING ONLY, WITH MOUSSA USA, LLC BEING THE MANUFACTURER LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILDING.
THESE CONTRACTS COVER ONE PROJECT AT THE SAME SITE IN SHARON EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT OUTLINING THE REQUIRED ANNUAL JOBS IN PARALLEL TO BE CREATED AND MAINTAINED BY MOUSSA USA, LLC.
THE EXHIBIT A REQUIRES THAT MOUSSA USA CREATE AND MAINTAIN 28 NEW JOBS WITH 1,750,993 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD WHERE 24 JOBS WITH 1,548,317 IN PAYROLL.
FILINGS NON-COMPLIANT DUE TO NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED JOBS AND PAYROLL, THE ASCENSION PARISH COUNCIL, ESSENTIALLY SCHOOL BOARD AND ASCENSION PARISH.
THE COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARD SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS AND THE SHERIFF SUBMITTED A LETTER REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY PENALIZE MOUSSA USA, LLC AND TALENT INDUSTRIAL LLC A ONE YEAR REDUCTION PERCENTAGE OF 11% IN THE FINAL YEAR OF THEIR CONTRACT, REDUCING THE INCENTIVE FROM 80% TO 69% FOR THE 2025 AD VALOREM TAX YEAR.
>> I WANT TO BE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE I WENT BACK AND READ THOSE LETTERS.
THOSE LETTERS AND THOSE RESOLUTIONS ARE A COUPLE OF TIMES.
>> THE AMOUNT THEY'RE ABLE TO BE ABATED IS 69% IN THE LAST YEAR OF THEIR CONTRACT.
>> DO WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE FROM MOUSSA FIRST OF ALL? YES, SIR. WHILE HE'S COMING UP, DO WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE FROM ASCENSION PARISH? ANYBODY HERE FROM ASCENSION? I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE 11%. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND.
I WANT, I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> HI, WILLIAM FISH, FINANCE MANAGER FOR MOUSSA USA.
>> TELL US WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE FAILURE TO MEET YOUR GOALS.
>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?
>> PLEASE TELL US WHAT HAPPENED WITH YOUR FAILURE TO MEET YOUR GOALS HERE.
>> WELL, 2021 WAS REALLY WHEN WE STARTED TO RECOVER FROM THE PANDEMIC YEAR OF 2020.
[01:30:03]
WE ACTUALLY INCREASED OUR PAYROLL BY OVER 200,000 IN 2021 FROM 1.3 MILLION TO OVER 1.5.OUR UNIT VOLUME INCREASED BY ABOUT 18%.
IN TERMS OF OUR HEAD COUNT WE AVERAGED HEAD COUNT OF ABOUT 21 IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE YEAR AND THEN WE GRADUALLY RAMPED UP TO 27 BY THE FINAL QUARTER OF THE YEAR.
IT WAS REALLY THE START OF THE RECOVERY.
TOOK A WHILE TO GET GOING, PROBABLY DIDN'T REALLY KICK IN UNTIL ABOUT THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2021.
A FEW EXTERNAL FACTORS THAT IMPACTED OUR RESULTS WERE THAT, IF YOU MAY RECALL, HURRICANE IOTA CAME THROUGH IN 2021.
OUR PLANT WAS IMPACTED BY THAT STORM.
WE ACTUALLY LOST SIX DAYS OF PRODUCTION DUE TO POWER OUTAGES AND FLOODING IN THE AREA.
HAD WE BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE OVER THAT TIME PERIOD, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ADDITIONAL NEARLY $21,000 OF PAYROLL THAT WE WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO APPLY.
WE WERE STILL FEELING THE IMPACT OF COVID IN 2021 IN TERMS OF EMPLOYEES TESTING POSITIVE AND BEING FORCED TO QUARANTINE, OUR POLICY WAS A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS AFTER TESTING POSITIVE, UNPAID AND HAD THOSE EMPLOYEES BEEN ABLE TO WORK DURING THAT TIME, THAT ADDITIONAL $8,200 OF PAYROLL DOLLARS THAT WE WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO EARN DURING THAT TIME.
WELL, IT APPEARS WE MISS THE TARGET.
THE 21 TARGET WAS 1,000,750 AND CHANGE.
WE ACTUALLY CAME IN AT 1,000,548, THAT WAS ABOUT 88% OF THE OF THE STATE TARGET PER THE LANGUAGE IN THE COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A BELIEVING ALLOWANCE TO COME WITHIN 90% OF THAT TARGET.
IF WE HAD ADDED THE LOSS OF WAGES FROM THE HURRICANE, IOTA OUTAGE IN THE COVID ABSENCES, WE WOULD HAVE COME IN AT 1,000,000, 577, WHICH ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN US OVER THAT 90% THRESHOLD.
JUST ASKING FOR SOME CONSIDERATION FOR THAT AND IN TERMS OF THE THE HEAD COUNT, AGAIN, WE JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO JUST TOOK US A WHILE TO GET UP TO THE POINT WHERE THAT WE NEEDED TO GET TO, BUT WE STILL ACTUALLY STILL FELL SHORT OVERALL.
THROUGHOUT 2022, WE GENERALLY WE'RE ABOVE THAT 28 EMPLOYEE THRESHOLD AND WE ACTUALLY JUST SUBMITTED OUR FILING FOR THE YEAR 2022 WHEN WE HAD OVER $1.7 MILLION OF PAYROLL FOR THAT YEAR.
>> GOOD MORNING. I'M RUSSELL RICHARDSON WITH THE BATON ROUGE AREA CHAMBER.
KATE MCARTHUR WITH ASCENSION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ASKED ME TO COME IN FOR HER.
SHE'S NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY, BUT I'M HERE TO CONFER THE 11% FOR THE FINAL YEARS.
WHAT SHE TOLD ME TO MAKE SURE, WAS COMMUNICATED.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHY 11%, THAT SEEMS LIKE A RANDOM NUMBER TO ME, BUT HELPED ME UNDERSTAND IT.
>> I DON'T KNOW THE REASONING BEHIND, BUT I WAS LOOKING AT THE PAYROLL REDUCTION ON THE APPLICATION HERE, AND IT'S 11%.
>> YOU THINK IT'S TIED TO THE AMOUNT.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE THEY TIED IT TO THE NUMBER.
I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
>> WERE YOU IN THE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANY OF THE PARISH ENTITIES?
>> NOT DIRECTLY, BUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, THAT IT WAS AN 11% MISS VERSUS THE TARGET FOR THE YEAR.
>> THANK YOU. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING TO MAKE US WALK THROUGH ALL THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE CREATE A RECORD TO UNDERSTAND FOR POSTERITY PLAN IN THE WORLD IF WE APPROVE 11% CUT IN FINAL YEAR.
WHERE THE HELL DID 11% COME FROM.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CREATE THAT RECORD.
WE HAVE FOR THE FIRST TIME, I THINK WE HAVE A JOINT RECOMMENDATION FROM ALL THE RELATED ENTITIES.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RENEWAL WITH A PENALTY IN THE LAST YEAR OF 11%.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MUELLER, SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WAS A RENEWAL.
>> I'M SORRY. DID I SAY RENEWAL? I APOLOGIZE.
FORGIVE GIVING ME THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT CLEAR.
[01:35:04]
ARE WE READY TO VOTE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE ARE NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. RICHARDSON, FOR YOUR HELP.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT, 20180142-A FAR TO TAMINKO U.S.
LLC AND ARAB REVOLT 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 ZERO IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED WAS ZERO.
THE PARISH SUBMITTED A RESOLUTION STATING THE REVEAL ARAB REVOLT PARISH COUNCIL DECIDED TO DEFER ANY DECISION OR ACTION ON THE COMPANY'S NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
THE SCHOOL BOARD ISSUED A RESOLUTION STATING THAT I-TAP CONTRACT AND NUMBER 2018 0142-A FOR TAMINKO NOT BE TERMINATED AS IT RELATES TO THE ARAB REVOLT PARIS SCHOOL BOARD FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.
BY FAILING TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SAID CONTRACT FOR THE 2021 YEAR, THE SHERIFF ISSUED A LETTER STATING AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH TAMINKO COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES AND AFTER REVIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RESULTING IN TAMINKO RECEIVED A NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE.
I REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION.
NUMBER 1, APPROVE TAMINKO'S CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN I-TAP.
NUMBER 2, DO NOT IMPOSE ANY PENALTIES ON TAMINKO'S I-TAP PARTICIPATION, AND THE CITY OF ST. GABRIEL DID NOT RESPOND.
>> ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM TAMINKO? [NOISE] THANK YOU.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.
>> GOOD MORNING. TIM HARRIS THE SITE MANAGER.
>> RIGHT. AND WHAT DO YOU ALL MAKE?
>> WE MAKE AMY'S, SO WE MAKE ALL THE PRODUCTS THAT MAKE YOUR DAILY LIFE POSSIBLE.
I CAN GO ON BUT WE START WITH YOUR CLEAN DRINKING WATER, THE FOOD YOU EAT, THE CELL PHONE, THOSE SOAP, SHAMPOO, BODY WASH THAT YOU USED THIS MORNING.
THOSE ARE THE PRODUCTS WE MAKE.
WHY WE'RE UNABLE TO CREATE THE JOBS IN 2021.
>> WE BELIEVE THAT WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF A CONTRACT TECHNICALITY.
I PREPARED SOME MARKS AND SO, I'LL JUST READ THEM IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME.
WE BUILT THE ASSET WE PLAN TO BUILD.
WE BUILT IT WHEN WE PLAN TO BUILD IT, AND WE HAVE CREATED THE JOBS WE PROMISED DESPITE NUMEROUS CHALLENGES.
WE CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD IN 2018 WITH A POTENTIAL PROJECT, EASTMAN.
TO BE CLEAR, TAMINKO WAS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF EASTMAN.
IF YOU DRIVE IN FRONT OF THE SITE, YOU'LL SEE A BIG SIGN THAT SAYS EASTMAN.
BUT EASTMAN WAS LOOKING TO ADD A NEW PRODUCT LINE, AND ONE OF ITS FACILITIES AND EITHER IN LOUISIANA, TEXAS, FLORIDA, OR EUROPE.
THE PROCESS WAS VERY COMPETITIVE AND THE APPROVAL AND SUPPORT THAT WE RECEIVED FOR I-TAP WAS A FACTOR IN US WINNING THE PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT CONSISTED OF THREE PARTS AND I BELIEVE THIS IS WHERE SOME OF THE CONFUSION IS.
THESE PARTS NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED IN SEQUENCE IN ORDER TO CREATE THE JOBS AND BECOME OPERATIONAL.
FIRST WAS TO BUILD A NEW CONTROL ROOM AND A LABORATORY BUILDING.
SECOND WAS TO INSTALL IN THAT CONTROL ROOM, A NEW CONTROL SYSTEM FOR THE ENTIRE PLANT.
THEN FINALLY BUILD A NEW PRODUCTION UNIT THAT NEEDS OF THAT CONTROL SYSTEM TO RUN.
WE APPLIED FOR I-TAP DURING THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS.
WE WORKED TO FINALIZE DESIGNS AND PLANS IN SUPPORT OF THAT FINAL INVESTMENT DECISION.
THAT FINAL INVESTMENT DECISION WAS MADE IN 2018.
DURING CONSTRUCTION WE MANAGED THROUGH COVID AND TWO VERY ACTIVE HURRICANE SEASONS.
WE COMPLETED THE PROJECT ON TIME, DESPITE ALL THAT IN THE SUMMER OF 2021.
AT THE END OF 2021, DUE TO THE RETIREMENTS, POST PROJECT TURNOVER AND WORK FORCES CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH COVID, WE WERE AT 98 EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS THE ZERO COMMITTED.
BY THE END OF 2022, THE YEAR AFTER, WE COMPLETED THE PROJECT, WE WERE AT 111.
WE MET ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS.
THAT WAS THE YEAR WE EXPECTED FROM THE BEGINNING TO HAVE TO MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS.
WE WORK THROUGH THE CHALLENGES WITH OUR APPLICABLE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES AND WE'RE HERE TODAY TO SEEK YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR OUR PROJECT IN THE ARAB REVOLT PARISH. THANK YOU.
>> WHY WAS THERE CONFUSION ABOUT CREATION OF FIVE NEW JOBS IN 2021?
[01:40:03]
WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?>> THIS CONTRACT FOLLOWS THE 2017 I-TAP RULES, WHICH REQUIRED THAT WHENEVER A COMPANY SUBMITS THEIR APPLICATION, THEY SUBMIT THE EXHIBIT B'S, WHICH ARE THE LOCAL RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE PROJECT AND THE EXEMPTION.
IN THOSE RESOLUTIONS UNDER THE 2017 ROLES, THE LOCAL STIPULATE THE JOBS AND PAYROLL TO BE CREATED AND MAINTAINED.
AND IN THOSE RESOLUTIONS BASED STATED FIVE WITH ZERO AND PAYROLL FOR THE FIRST YEAR.
>> SO THAT'S WHERE THE FIVE IS COMING FROM? FROM THE LOCALS.
>> AND THE NEXT YEAR THAT THE PAYROLL WOULD BE ADDED AS A RAMP-UP.
BASICALLY LED INCLUDED THE LOCALS' REQUIREMENT INTO THE CONTRACT. IS THAT SO?
>> THE EXHIBIT B RESOLUTIONS ARE USED TO BE INPUT INTO THE EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT BY LED.
>> I'M WITNESS, MR. LEONARD, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> JIMMY LEONARD WITH ADVANCES CONSULTING.
THIS WAS ONE OF THE VERY FIRST EXHIBIT A'S COMING FROM LED.
THIS WAS AN EARLY ON PROJECT HERE.
AS HUDD EXPLAINED CORRECTLY, WE DO HAVE RESOLUTIONS FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES INDICATING FIVE AND 21.
HOWEVER, THE CONFUSION COMES IN IS THE ACTUAL CONTRACT THAT WAS EXECUTED BY TAMINKO HAS A PROVISION IN THERE THAT STATES THAT THE JOB COMMITMENTS BEGAN FOLLOWING THE COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS WE HAD THE CONTROL BUILDING GO ON AN APPLICATION IN A PHASED STATUS.
BUT YET WE DON'T HAVE THE NEW LINE IN PRODUCTION YET.
WE DON'T HAVE THE NEED FOR THE EMPLOYMENT AT THAT TIME.
WITH EARLY EXHIBIT A'S, THE WAY THE RESOLUTION DREAD, THE WAY EXHIBIT A READS, WE RAN INTO SOME CHALLENGES.
WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITIES AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE GOT SUPPORT TO KEEP THINGS AS ARE.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL. MR. MUELLER?
>> I WANT TO HONOR THE WISHES OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT PENALTY.
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MUELLER, SECOND FROM MAYOR TOUPS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE NON-COMPLIANT CONTRACTS FOLLOWING THE 2018 ITEP RULES.
WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT NUMBER 2019 0355-A FOR CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC AND ASCENSION PARISH THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBITING AGREEMENT REQUIRED THE COMPANY CREATE AND RETAIN SEVEN JOBS TOWARDS 700,000 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED FOR 2021 WAS SEVEN JOBS WITH $876,446 IN PAYROLL.
THE FILING IS NON-COMPLIANT DUE TO THE LATE FILING ONLY.
THE COMPLIANCE WAS DUE SEPTEMBER 20TH OF 2022, BUT NOT RECEIVED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10TH OF 2022.
THE PARISH COUNCIL AND THE SCHOOL BOARD BOTH SUBMITTED RESOLUTION STATING THEY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY NOT PENALIZE CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC.
THE SHERIFF SUBMITTED A LETTER STATING, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TAKE NO PENALIZING ACTION ON THIS CONTRACT.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I COULD CALL CF INDUSTRIES UP HERE AND WE COULD HEAR WHY THEY FILED THEIR APPLICATION LATE.
BUT IN LIGHT OF THE TAKE-NO-ACTION FROM ALL THE AFFECTED LOCAL ENTITIES, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT PENALTY.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM MAYOR TOUPS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? WHOEVER IS HERE FROM CF INDUSTRIES, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT MAKING YOU COME UP HERE AND TALK TO ME.
[LAUGHTER] THERE BEING NO COMMENTS ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES. NEXT.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT, 2017 0416, FOR CORNERSTONE CHEMICAL COMPANY IN JEFFERSON PARISH THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
AND THE EXHIBIT A REQUIRED THE COMPANY CREATE AND RETAIN EIGHT JOBS WITH $838,450 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED FOR 2021 WAS ZERO JOB WITH ZERO IN PAYROLL.
THE PARISH COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARD SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS AND THE SHERIFF SUBMITTED A LETTER ALL STATING THEY REQUEST THAT THE LOUISIANA BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TAKING NO ACTION REGARDING THE ITEP NON-COMPLIANCE.
>> IN SIMILAR FASHION, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS, SECOND FROM MAYOR TOUPS THAT WE APPROVE WITHOUT PENALTY.
[01:45:03]
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SIMILAR APOLOGIES TO THOSE OF YOU REPRESENTING CORNERSTONE CHEMICAL COMPANY.>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE TWO CONTRACTS 2018, 0149 AND 2018, 0149-A FOR DIVERSIFIED FOODS AND SEASONINGS, LLC AND ST. TAMMANY PARIS THAT ARE NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBIT FOR BOTH CONTRACTS REQUIRES THE COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN 44 JOBS WITH $1,245,200 IN PAYROLL.
THE PARIS SCHOOL BOARD NOR SHERIFF SUBMITTED A RECOMMENDATION.
>> DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE FROM DIVERSIFIED? STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY FIRST.
>> GOOD MORNING. RUBEN RENGUEL, ADVANCE CONSULTING.
>> TELL US WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
>> I GOT A STATEMENT HERE FROM DIVERSIFIED, I'D LIKE TO READ ON THEIR BEHALF.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK REGARDING DIVERSIFIED FOODS AND SEASONINGS, JOBS AND PAYROLL NON-COMPLIANCE FOR CONTRACTS 2018, 0149 AND 2018, 0149-A.
AS WITH MANY BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT OUR STATE AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES, DIVERSIFIED FOODS WAS IMPACTED SIGNIFICANTLY BY THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
PERHAPS MOST DEVASTATING TO OUR BUSINESS OPERATIONS WERE MASS EMPLOYEE RESIGNATIONS AND AN ABSENCE OF NEW QUALIFIED APPLICANTS.
IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT OUR EMPLOYMENT SHORTFALLS WERE AND ARE NOT DUE TO ANY COMPANY-MANDATED WORKFORCE REDUCTIONS OR SALARY CUTS.
IN FACT, WE ACTIVELY SOUGHT TO REPLACE EMPLOYEES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
WE UTILIZE RECRUITING SERVICES, JOB FAIRS, SECONDARY SCHOOLS, TRADE SCHOOLS, ONLINE JOB POSTINGS, ADVERTISING, AND EMPLOYEE REFERRAL INCENTIVES.
WE HAVE ALSO IMPLEMENTED SIGN-ON BONUSES AND INCREASED OUR BASE WAGE IN AN ATTEMPT TO ATTRACT QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.
WE HAVE REQUIRED OVERTIME HOURS AND UTILIZED CONTRACT LABOR TO ALSO FILL THE GAP.
DESPITE OUR BEST EFFORTS, WE ARE STILL STRUGGLING TO FIND AND HIRE ADDITIONAL QUALIFIED EMPLOYEES TO FILL OUR OPEN POSITIONS IN ORDER TO MEET OUR EXHIBIT A THRESHOLDS.
THEREFORE, WE NOW FEEL THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BOTH DIVERSIFIED FOODS AND THE LOCAL TAXING BODIES THAT WE CANCEL CONTRACTS 2018, 0149 AND 2018, 0149-A.
WE HAVE ALSO BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE LOCAL TAXING BODIES REGARDING OUR DECISION TO EXIT THE PROGRAM, HENCE THERE ARE NO RESPONSES FROM THE PARISH COUNCIL, SCHOOL BOARD, AND SHERIFF.
IN FACT, THE CONTRACT CANCELLATION REQUEST HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO LED HERE BACK AT THE BEGINNING OF 2023.
THIS IS SINCERELY DARREN JAMES, SENIOR DIRECTOR MANUFACTURING IN FIRST FIVE FOODS AND SEASONINGS.
>> IT APPEARS PERHAPS THE PRUDENT COURSE HERE, IF THERE IS A PENDING REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION, PERHAPS DEFER ANY ACTION ON THIS UNTIL WE SEE WHETHER WE GET THE CANCELLATION.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CANCELLATION IS TO BE EFFECTIVE 12, 31 OF 2022, WHICH MEANS 2022 COMPLIANCE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A REVIEW AND SUBMIT IT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BUT WE STILL HAVE THESE ISSUES. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. VERY GOOD.
WELL PUT. WE STILL HAVE THE ISSUE OF NON-COMPLIANCE IN 2021 AND WE MAY HAVE A NONCOMPLIANCE IN 2022 AS WELL.
>> BUT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THEY WANTED TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT EFFECTIVE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] 12, 31, 2022 IS WHAT THEIR WISH WOULD BE.
>> WE STILL NEED TO DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION AND WE HAVE NO RESPONSE FROM ANY OF THE LOCAL ENTITIES.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT PENALTY.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. NASSER, SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? THERE BEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE BEING NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT FOR GATOR MILLWORKS, INC IN LIVINGSTON PARISH, 2018, 0108.
THEY'RE NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBIT A REQUIRES THE COMPANY TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN FIVE JOBS AND 250,000 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED WERE ZERO JOBS AND 126,318 IN PAYROLL.
THE FILING IS NON-COMPLIANT DUE TO THE REQUIRED JOBS AND PAYROLL NOT BEING MET.
THE PARISH COUNCIL, LIVINGSTON SCHOOL BOARD, AND LIVINGSTON SHERIFF DID NOT RESPOND.
>> ANYONE HERE FROM GATOR MILLWORKS?
[01:50:09]
THANK YOU. IF YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY, PLEASE.>> CHAD FOSTER, I'M PRESIDENT.
>> TELL US WHAT HAPPENED IN 2021.
>> WE MOVED INTO FACILITY A YEAR BEFORE AND THEN WE EXPERIENCED IN 2021 RESIGNATIONS LIKE MANY OTHERS AND JUST COULDN'T MAINTAIN POSITIONS WITH STAFF.
>> WHEN IS YOUR ORIGINAL DATE OF THE CONTRACT? I DON'T SEE IT IN THE INFORMATION I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.
>> I THINK THE CONTRACT EFFECTIVE DATE IS 12 OF 31 OF 2020 AND THIS IS THE FIRST REPORTING PERIOD.
>> YES, I WENT INTO SERVICE 6:30 OF 2020.
>> WERE YOU ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS IN 2020?
>> THERE WERE NO REQUIREMENTS IN 2020.
>> BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR.
>> THE FIRST YEAR OF EXEMPTION IS 2021.
>> GOT IT. WHAT ABOUT 2022? HAVE YOU MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 2022? DO YOU HAVE THE JOBS AND THE PAYROLL?
>> WE HAVE NOT FILED THAT YET.
>> I KNOW YOU HAVE NOT FILED IT YET, BUT DO YOU HAVE A FEEL FOR WHERE YOU ARE?
>> I THINK WE'RE CLOSE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE THERE.
>> AGAIN WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE NO RESPONSE FROM ANY OF THE ENTITIES.
>> MAY I MAKE A COMMENT, CHAIRMAN?
>> THIS IS JESSE BRODERICK WITH SUMIT CREDITS.
WE WORK WITH GAIT OR MALE WORKS.
THE LOCALS ACTUALLY DID HAVE THIS THEY WERE GOING TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR BOTH THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE PARISH, AND AFTER MEETING WITH THE COMPANY AND AFTER HAVING ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND MOVE IT FORWARD.
BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM THE CALL THAT WE GOT WAS THAT IT WAS MERELY AS A WAY TO SHOW THAT THEY DO APPROVE IT, BUT THEY JUST DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE AN ACTION AND PUT IT ON AGENDA THEY VERBALLY TOLD US THAT THEY DO APPROVE THAT THE COMPANY BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT ANY PENALTY.
>> I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT PENALTY.
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.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ONE CONTRACT, 2020-02-20 FOR GRAVOIS ALUMINUM BOATS LLC IN ST. MARY PARISH THAT IS NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBIT A REQUIRED THE COMPANY CREATE AND MAINTAIN TWO JOBS WITH $72,800 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED FOR 2021 WAS ZERO JOBS WITH ZERO IN PAYROLL.
IN ADDITION TO THE JOBS AND PAYROLL, THE COMPANY HAS ALSO A NON-COMPLIANT DUE THAT ARE LATE FILING.
THE COMPLIANCE WAS DUE APRIL 30TH OF 2022 AND RECEIVED JUNE 29TH OF 2022.
THREE LOCALS THE PARISH COUNCIL, SHERIFF, AND CITY OF FRANKLIN DID NOT RESPOND.
THE SCHOOL BOARD SUBMITTED A RESOLUTION STATING IN A UNANIMOUS DECISION TO ST. MARY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD APPROVED A MOTION TO DEFER ANY DECISION REGARDING THE COMPANY'S NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
>> WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE FROM GRAVOIS?
>> YOU STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR POSITION WITH THE COMPANY.
>> PAULA TRAHAN I'M THE HR MANAGER IN GRAVOIS ALUMINUM BOATS.
>> RIGHT AND TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
>> FULL DISCLOSURE ON THE LATENESS.
WE CHOSE BECAUSE OF FUNDS NOT TO HIRE A CONSULTANT COMPANY TO DO THE ITECH INFORMATION.
I LITERALLY DID NOT KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING, SO I HAD TO CALL HOOD 100 TIMES HOPING THAT HE WOULD TAKE MY CALL AND NOT CUT ME OFF.
ITS FAST LANE IS NOT VERY EASY FOR ME TO GRASP A HOLD OF.
I FINALLY DID, GOT IT TURNED IN, AND WAS A FEW MONTHS LATE.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE JOBS AND PAYROLL?
>> WE OVERNIGHT LOST A FERRY CONTRACT FOR THE NEW YORK AREA.
WE WERE BUILDING 250-350 PASSENGER BOATS.
LITERALLY LOST IT FROM A FRIDAY TO A MONDAY DUE TO COVID.
WE ALSO HAD A HOLD FROM THE US NAVY TO DO NEAR COASTAL PATROL VESSELS.
[01:55:06]
WE HAD 11 ON BOARD AND WE WERE ONLY ALLOWED TO BUILD FIVE, SO WE HAD A CONTRACT HOLD ON THAT.WE'RE JUST STARTING TO RECOVER.
>> WERE THERE TERMINATIONS OR JUST NOT ADDING NEW PEOPLE?
WE SEIZED ALL ORIENTATIONS OF ANY KIND, ANY TRADE.
WE HAD PEOPLE LEAVE BECAUSE THEY WORKED FROM HOME LIKED IT AND WE HAD SOME RETIRE.
>> HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU NORMALLY HAVE?
>> WE AT THE TIME HAD ABOUT 326.
WE WERE SUPPOSED TO KEEP 285 BASED UPON THE FORMULA AND WE DID NOT KEEP THOSE PEOPLE.
WE TRIED TO KEEP SOME BY MOVING THEM TO OUR GENERATE FACILITY WHICH IS ON A DIFFERENT CONTRACT.
>> AGAIN, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE LOCALS, NO WE HAVEN'T.
>> IT'S WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD.
I'M SORRY, MR. NASSER, YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT PENALTY? I HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. NASSER 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.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD LUCK TO YOU.
>> WE MAY HAVE ONE MORE CONTRACT FOR LASALLE BIOENERGY, LLC 2019-0147 IN LASALLE PARISH.
THEY'RE NON-COMPLIANT FOR THE 2021 REPORTING PERIOD.
THE EXHIBIT A REQUIRED THE COMPANY TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN TWO JOBS WITH 133,748 IN PAYROLL.
THE ACTUAL JOBS CREATED WERE ZERO JOBS AND ZERO IN PAYROLL.
THE FILING IS NON-COMPLIANT DUE TO NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED JOBS AND PAYROLL, AND FOR LATE FILING, IT WAS DUE 4:30 OF '20 AND IT WAS FILED 7/8 OF '22.
>> I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT IF LASALLE ENERGY CAME BACK TO THE TABLE, THEY WOULD SAY THE SAME THING THEY SAID THE FIRST TIME.
IS THAT REASONABLY ACCURATE? THEN COME ON. IF IT'S A DIFFERENT STORY, I NEED TO HEAR IT. [LAUGHTER]
>> IT WAS THE SAME NO RESPONSE FROM THE POLICE JURY SCHOOL BOARD AND THE SHERIFF.
BUT WE GOT ANOTHER LETTER FROM THE PARISH ASSESSOR STATING THE SAME.
>> THANK YOU. STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> BECKY POULIN, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE PROJECTS.
>> RONLYN FLEURY, DDA CONSULTANTS.
>> WHAT'S THE SITUATION ON THIS CONTRACT?
>> FOR THE LATE FILING, OUR APPLICATION WAS ACTUALLY FILED AT THE END OF APRIL.
WE DID GET AN EXTENSION TO FILE THE COMPLIANCE REPORT TO THE END OF JUNE SO WE WERE ABOUT A WEEK LATE ON THAT.
THEN FOR THE JOBS WE JUST LIKE THE OTHER COMPANIES, HAVE STRUGGLED TO KEEP AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYEES FROM THE PANDEMIC.
WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RETAIN OUR BASELINE OF 72 EMPLOYEES, BUT BEING ABLE TO GET THE TWO NEW EMPLOYEES HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE FOR US.
>> THERE IS NO QUESTION ON THE BASELINE.
ALL THAT IS OKAY FOR THIS ONE, AND I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT AT THE END OF 2021, THEY DID HAVE THREE EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NET NEW JOBS WHEN THEY ONLY NEED IT TWO BUT TWO WERE TERMED IN THE THIRD QUARTER AND ONE WAS TERMED IN THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2021.
OF COURSE, THEY'RE NOT ACTIVE AND IT BECAME ZERO.
>> I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT PENALTY.
MOTION FROM DR. WILSON, SECOND MAYOR TOUPS.
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.
>> KRISTEN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE ARE AT THE END OF OUR AGENDA, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE? ANY COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY AND MR. LAMBERT?
[9. Secretary Remarks – Secretary Don Pierson]
>> I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, CHAIRMAN JONES, I'LL JUST SAY IT.
WE'RE IN WEEK 3 OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
IT'S PROVING TO BE A PRETTY BUSY FISCAL-ONLY SESSION WHERE STAFF IS SPENDING A DECENT AMOUNT OF TIME IN COMMITTEES AS SECRETARY PIERSON WAS THIS MORNING.
BUT WE'RE TRACKING EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO BE TRACKING WHEN IT COMES TO INCENTIVES AND THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES.
[02:00:01]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER?
>> JUST WANTED TO MISS THE ROLL CALL.
JUST WANTED TO FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER AND FOR THE MINUTES THAT I'M JOSEPH HOLLAND AND I'M FILLING IN AS THE GOVERNOR'S DESIGNEE TODAY.
IT HELPED US OUT TREMENDOUSLY.
WE APPRECIATE IT. MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> WE ARE ADJOURNED. [BACKGROUND]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.