[1. Call to Order – Jerald Jones, Chairman]
[00:00:04]
WE HAVE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WEATHER TODAY.[LAUGHTER] I HOPE EVERYONE IS HAVING A GOOD START TO 2025.
THE YEAR CAME IN HOT, AND I HOPE IT CALMS DOWN AT SOME POINT.
BUT TODAY, I HOPE WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME SANITY IN THIS MEETING.
WITH THAT, I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
MS. SIMMONS, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A QUORUM.
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. STUART MOSS.
REPRESENTATIVE DARYL DESHOTEL.
>> REPRESENTATIVE JULIE EMERSON.
LETICIA OJWANG. ROBBIE MILLER.
>> FOR THE GOVERNOR. WE HAVE A QUORUM, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. BOARD, I THINK YOU'VE HAD
[3. Approval of Minutes from December 13, 2024 meeting]
AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM OUR DECEMBER 13, 2024 MEETING.I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ABOUT THE MINUTES? HEARING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
MS. DAGNY, GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE YOU?
[4. Quality Jobs Program – Michaela Adegbe]
>> GOOD MORNING. I'M WELL, AND YOURSELF?
>> DOING VERY WELL. THANK YOU.
PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THE QUALITY JOBS PROGRAM, PLEASE.
>> THERE ARE THREE NEW APPLICATIONS.
2022-0460, ASAHI AMERICA, INC., ST. JAMES PARISH, 2023-0397, COPADO, INC., ORLEANS PARISH, 2023-0047, LEADING EDGE MANUFACTURING, LAFAYETTE PARISH.
>> WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE QJ APPLICATIONS.
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.
>> THREE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS.
2019-0225, FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, 2019-0510, VALERO SERVICES, INC., ST. CHARLES PARISH, 2020-0042, WEYERHAEUSER AND R COMPANY, NATCHITOCHES PARISH.
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE QJ RENEWALS.
I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. REMEDIES. 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.
>> ONE FULL TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP TO NEW COMPANY.
2016-1943, CURRENT COMPANY, GENERAL INFORMATICS, LLC, NEW COMPANY, GENERAL INFORMATICS LABOR, LLC, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL REQUEST FROM MR. MILLER.
>> SECOND FROM SECRETARY BOURGEOIS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE IS NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> THIS CONCLUDES QUALITY JOBS. THANK YOU.
>> LET'S SEE. WALK US THROUGH RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENTS, PLEASE.
[5. Restoration Tax Abatement Program – Travis Rosenberg]
THERE ARE TWO RENEWAL APPLICATIONS.
2015-0237-PTE, 4624 DOWNTOWN LOS, LLC, CADDO PARISH, AND 2015-0237-PT2 FOR LAS PALMAS GROUP, LOS, LLC IN CADDO PARISH.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION FROM MR. REMEDIES. SECOND FROM MR. MELE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE.
[00:05:04]
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE RTA AGENDA.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD MORNING, MS. MOYER.
>> ENTERPRISE ZONE APPLICATIONS.
[6. Enterprise Zone Program – Joyce Metoyer]
2020-0245, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, NATCHITOCHES PARISH. WISHES TO DEFER.
>> WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEFER THE INTERNATIONAL PAPER.
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. THAT MATTER IS DEFERRED TO THE NEXT MEETING.
>> WE HAVE SIX NEW APPLICATIONS.
2021-0234, ADVANCED CUTTING SOLUTIONS, LLC, ORLEANS PARISH, 2021-0363, COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, UNITED GULF COAST, LLC, LAFAYETTE PARISH, 2020-0465, CONRAD SHIPYARD AMELIA, LLC, ST. MARY PARISH, 2022-0488, MELE INSTANT PRINTING COMPANY INCORPORATED, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, 2020-0294, OCHSNER LSU HEALTH SYSTEM, CADDO PARISH, AND 2021-0104, SOUTHSIDE MACHINE WORKS INCORPORATED, CALCASIEU PARISH.
>> MR. MELE, WILL YOU BE RECUSING YOURSELF FROM MELE INSTANT PRINTING COMPANY, INC?
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION FROM MAYOR TOUPS. SECOND FOR MR. REMEDIES. 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 SIX CONTRACT TERMINATIONS.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 717D OF THE ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM RULES, A BUSINESS MAY SUBMIT A REQUEST TO TERMINATE THEIR ENTERPRISE ZONE CONTRACT IF, ONE, THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR AT LEAST 30 MONTHS, TWO, THE BUSINESS HAS MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAM, WHICH INCLUDES TIMELY FILING OF ALL PROGRAM FORMS, DOCUMENTS, AND APPROPRIATE FEES.
THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTS WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, AND THE CONTRACT HOLDERS LISTED BELOW HAVE SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO TERMINATE THEIR ENTERPRISE ZONE CONTRACT.
THE CONTRACTEE UNDERSTANDS BOARD DECISION IS FINAL AND CONTRACTS CANNOT BE REINSTATED OR REACTIVATED.
2019-0412, HOWELL FOUNDRY, LLC, WEST FELICIANA PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS 12/13/20-12/12/2025.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS 6/13/2023.
2019-0330, NMC OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS 10/13/20-10/12/2025.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS APRIL 13, 2023.
2021-0100, NOBLE PLASTICS, LLC, ST. LANDRY PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT, 3/1/21-2/28/2026.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS 9/1/2023.
2020-0165, SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA HOSPITAL, DOING BUSINESS AS LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, CALCASIEU PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS MAY 1, 2020 TO APRIL 30, 2025.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS APRIL 30, 2023.
2020-0167, SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, DOING BUSINESS AS LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, CALCASIEU PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS 5/13/2021-5/12/2026.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS 5/12/2024.
2020-0448, WILLIS KNIGHT MEDICAL CENTER INCORPORATED, CADDO PARISH.
THE EXISTING CONTRACT IS 10/30/2020-10/29/2025.
THE REQUESTED TERM DATE IS 10/29/2023.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE CONTRACT TERMINATIONS? MOTION FROM MR. POLOZOLA.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
[00:10:02]
THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
[7. Industrial Tax Exemption – Kristin Johnson/Hud Usie]
>> GOOD MORNING, MS. JOHNSON, MR. JOSE. WHO'S UP?
>> WE HAVE 11 NEW APPLICATIONS FOLLOWING THE 2018 ITEP RULES.
2022-0395, AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., ST. JAMES PARISH, 2022-0430, ARROW AVIATION COMPANY, LLC, ST. MARTIN PARISH, 2023-0489, ARROW AVIATION COMPANY, LLC, ST. MARTIN PARISH, 2022-0259, BANCROFT BAG, INC. IN OUACHITA PARISH, 2022-0534, BOLLINGER HOUMA SHIPYARDS, LLC IN TERREBONNE PARISH, 2022-0535, BOLLINGER QUICK REPAIR, LLC IN JEFFERSON PARISH, 2022-0483, GULF ISLAND, LLC, TERREBONNE PARISH, 2023-0024, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, WASHINGTON PARISH, 2023-0025, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, DESOTO PARISH, 2022-0118, LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., CADDO PARISH, AND 2023-0011, ST. MARY SUGAR COOPERATIVE, INC. IN ST. MARY PARISH.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A COMMENT I WANT TO MAKE ABOUT THESE BEFORE WE VOTE, BUT DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM A COUPLE OF MATTERS.
>> THE ONE INVOLVING AIR PRODUCTS AND THE TWO INVOLVING ARROW AVIATION, PLEASE.
>> PLEASE NOTE MR. POLOZOLA'S RECUSAL ON THOSE THREE MATTERS.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION FROM MAYOR TOUPS TO APPROVE.
WE HAD A MATTER THAT CAME UP AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WAS DEFERRED TO THIS MEETING CONCERNING BOLLINGER HOUMA SHIPYARDS AND BOLLINGER QUICK REPAIR.
IF YOU NOTICE ON YOUR AGENDA, THERE'S **.
THERE WAS AN ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER THOSE APPLICATIONS HAD BEEN FILED LATE OR NOT.
SINCE THE LAST MEETING, JUST TO FRAME WHAT THE ISSUE WAS, THE APPLICATION WAS DUE.
IT WAS DUE ON THE SATURDAY OF EASTER WEEKEND.
UNDER REVISED STATUTES 1:55, AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT PARAGRAPH, IN LOUISIANA, SATURDAYS, AND SUNDAYS ARE LEGAL HOLIDAYS IN STATE OF LOUISIANA, AND UNDER THE ITEP RULES, ANY APPLICATION THAT IS DUE ON A LEGAL HOLIDAY CAN BE FILED THE IMMEDIATE FOLLOWING DAY.
AFTER LOOKING AT THAT MATTER SINCE THE LAST MEETING, THE BOLLINGER APPLICATIONS WERE, IN FACT, TIMELY FILED BECAUSE THEY WERE FILED ON THE MONDAY FOLLOWING THE LEGAL HOLIDAY.
THAT WAS OF SOME DISCUSSION LAST WEEK OR LAST MEETING, SO I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THE RECORD WAS CLEAR ON THAT.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, OR WE CAN HAVE MS. PORTER ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT FROM THE BOARD.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THESE APPLICATIONS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? IF NOT, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE 11 NEW APPLICATIONS FOLLOWING THE POST-EO 2024 EMERGENCY RULES AND WE DO HAVE ONE DEFERRAL REQUEST.
2024-0291, BUXTON CREEK SOLAR, LLC IN CALCASIEU PARISH.
>> WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEFER THE BUXTON CREEK SOLAR MATTER.
>> MOTION FROM SECRETARY BOURGEOIS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT DEFERRAL? HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THERE BEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
THE MOTION CARRY. THAT MATTER IS DEFERRED TO THE NEXT MEETING.
>> 2024-0301, ADDP PROPERTY, LLC, LAFAYETTE PARISH, 2024-0099,
[00:15:03]
BEST STOP CAJUN FOOD, LLC, LAFAYETTE PARISH, 2024-0155, COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, UNITED GULF COAST, LLC IN LAFAYETTE PARISH, 2024-0545, ELEMENT 25 LOUISIANA LLC, EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, 2024-0264, FABRICATED STEEL PRODUCTS, INC. IN EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, 2024-0154, HOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. IN WASHINGTON PARISH, 2024-0078, LOUISIANA SUGARCANE COOPERATIVE, INC. IN ST. MARTIN PARISH, 2024-0305, PLACID REFINING COMPANY, LLC, WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, 2024-0245, SOUTHLAND INDUSTRIAL COATINGS, LLC, ST. LANDRY PARISH, AND 2024-0374, SOUTHLAND STEEL FABRICATORS, INC. IN ST. HELENA PARISH.>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION FROM MAYOR TOUPS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? THERE WAS ONE COMMENT THAT I RECEIVED CONCERNING THE BEST STOP CAJUN FOOD.
THERE WAS A REQUEST THAT WE ADD AN ADDENDUM THAT THEY NOT CHANGE THE RECIPES TO THEIR FOOD [LAUGHTER] ANY TIME SOON.
WE LIKE THEM JUST THE WAY THEY ARE.
>> THERE WERE NO SAMPLES OFFERED AS PART OF EXCHANGE FOR VOTES OR ANYTHING, BUT I DO HAVE THAT REQUEST.
CAN'T MAKE THAT PART OF THE MOTION, BUT IT IS A REQUEST.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.
ANY OTHER 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.
ONE MATTER THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP BEFORE WE MOVE PAST THESE POST 2024 EO RULES, IT PLEASES ME TO SAY THAT THE NEW ITEP RULES, WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THOSE RULES AND WENT VERY, VERY WELL.
THERE WERE NO NEGATIVE COMMENTS WHATSOEVER.
THE MATTER HAS GONE TO THE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND ASSUMING THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION FROM THE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES, WE ANTICIPATE THOSE RULES GOING INTO EFFECT MARCH 20TH.
THAT IS GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO HOW WE'RE DOING THINGS.
ONE REMINDER TO EVERYONE WHO IS LISTENING AND EVERYONE WHO IS REPRESENTING STAKEHOLDERS IN THE AUDIENCE OR WHO MAY BE WATCHING THIS ONLINE, ONE IMPORTANT PROVISION OF THOSE RULES, ASSUMING NOTHING CHANGES AT THE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES, IS THAT ANYONE WHO HAS HAD AN ITEP APPROVAL SINCE 2016 AND IS UNDER THE 2017 RULES OR THE 2018 RULES, YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT OF THE JOBS AND PAYROLL PROVISIONS FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CONTRACT.
WE URGE YOU TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT IF THAT IS YOUR WISH.
OUR GOAL, FRANKLY, WE WANTED TO MAKE ALL THE RULES LOOK JUST ALIKE.
BUT ADMINISTRATIVELY, SHOVING THAT SQUARE PEG INTO THAT ROUND HOLE BECAME ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.
BUT THIS WAS THE SECOND BEST STEP AND WE FEEL LIKE IT'S STILL A GOOD ONE.
I WANTED TO MAKE EVERYBODY AWARE OF THAT NEW MARCH 20 DATE. MOVING ON.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE 10 PRE O RENEWALS.
>>THESE ARE PRE 2016 EO RENEWALS, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. THEY'RE TIMELY FILED.
20130429-C-PT, CAMERON LNG, LLC, AND CALCASIEU PARISH.
20130429-D, CAMERON LNG, LLC, CAMERON PARISH.
20160883, ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC, LITTLE GYPSY, ST. CHARLES PARISH.
20121343, ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC, WATERFORD 3, ST. CHARLES PARISH.
20151086 LACC, LLC, US CALCASIEU PARISH.
20151087 LOTTE CHEMICALS LOUISIANA, LLC.
20151824, SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LP, ASCENSION PARISH, 20150910-B, SHINTECH LOUISIANA, LLC, ARBEVILL PARISH.
[00:20:01]
201614708-B, SHINTECH LOUISIANA, LLC, WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, AND 20150966-B, WR GRACE AND CO CALCASIEU PARISH.>> VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? A MOTION FROM MR. MOSS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? THE BEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE THREE TIMELY RENEWALS FOLLOWING THE POST EO 2017 RULES.
20180164, AIR LIQUIDE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES US, LLC, AND ALLEN PARISH, 20170088 FOSTER POULTRY FORMS AND UNION PARISH, AND 20170399 PLASTER PACK PACKAGING, INC AND REPEATS PARISH.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOTION FROM MR. MOSS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. MELE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ONE COMMENT I WANT TO MAKE JUST TO BE SURE THAT THOSE WHO ARE LOOKING AT THE AGENDA UNDERSTAND.
WHEN YOU LOOK UNDER THE ANNUAL COMPLIANCE SECTION, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME NON COMPLIANCES, BUT EACH OF THOSE NON COMPLIANCE ISSUES WERE RESOLVED IN THE YEAR THAT THEY HAPPENED.
THEY DO NOT AFFECT THE ABILITY TO RENEW OR NOT RENEW, BUT SOMETIMES THAT IS A QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN ASKED IN THE PAST.
I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR.
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD.
HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ONE LATE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOLLOWING THE POST EO 2017 RULES.
20180081 MELE PRINTING, INC AND ST. TAMMANY PARISH, INITIAL CONTRACT EXPIRATION 12/31/2023, LATE RENEWAL REQUEST DATE JANUARY 18TH OF 2024.
>> THE SITUATION HERE IS A LATE FILING.
>> AGAIN, THIS WAS A MATTER THAT WAS DEFERRED FROM THE LAST MEETING, AND WE ASKED THAT IT BE DEFERRED BECAUSE OF THE TIGHT TIME FRAME IN WHICH THE FILING WAS MADE AFTER IT WAS ONLY A COUPLE OF WEEKS LATE.
STAFF, MS. PORTER, WHOEVER CAN STOP ME WHEN I START LYING HERE, BUT I THINK WE'VE TAKEN A CLOSE LOOK AT THIS, AND UNDER OUR RULES, WE DON'T SEE ANY PROVISION BY WHICH WE CAN DO ANYTHING BUT APPLY THE PENALTY THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES.
MR. MELE, I PRESUME YOU'LL BE RECUSING YOURSELF FROM VOTE ON THIS AS WELL.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS LATE RENEWAL APPLICATION?
>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION WE RENEW WITH THE ONE YEAR PENALTY AS THE RULES REQUIRE.
>> YOU HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. MELE, I HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. MOSS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
>> MY NAME IS ROBERT WEGE WITH SUMIT CREDITS.
WE REPRESENT MELE PRINTING, AND I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUE THAT HAPPENED HERE SO THAT THE BOARD IS AWARE.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT HAPPENED IS MELE PARTICIPATES IN SEVERAL INCENTIVES, WHICH ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM.
THEY'RE A GROWING COMPANY, THEY'RE CREATING JOBS, AND EXPANDING THEIR BUSINESS HERE IN THE STATE.
THEY HAD A PRIOR CONSULTANT THAT RETIRED.
AND THAT RETIREMENT CREATED A GAP IN THE BASICALLY THEIR COVERAGE OR THEIR SERVICE.
THEY HIRED SUMIT CREDITS EARLY 2024, AND WE RECOGNIZED THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE PRIOR CONSULTANT DID NOT TAKE CARE OF AND MANAGE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD HAS RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT YOU GUYS NEED TO STICK TO.
MY QUESTION, I GUESS, OR THE THING THAT I WOULD POSE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS, THE RULES SAY THAT FOR A PORTION OF A MONTH THAT AN APPLICATION IS LATE, THAT THAT DEEMS A ONE YEAR PENALTY.
I KNOW WE JUST TALKED ABOUT HOLIDAYS AND INDIVIDUALS FILING THE DAY AFTER THE HOLIDAY.
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS APPLICATION BEING FILED ROUGHLY TWO WEEKS LATE DESERVES THAT STRICT OF A PENALTY? THAT'S MY QUESTION. WE APPRECIATE THESE INCENTIVES.
[00:25:02]
WE APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO, AND AGAIN, UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF CUT OFF AND DEADLINE.MELE IS DOING THEIR BEST TO ABIDE BY ALL THE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN TO STAY WITHIN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
THIS WAS LIKE A ONE TIME MISSTEP.
MR. MELE IS HERE, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM OR HIS COMPANY AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE?
>> I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS THE IMPACT THAT THIS HAS HAD.
I'VE BEEN IN THIS PROGRAM SINCE 2018.
IT'S AMAZING WHAT IT'S DONE FOR MY BUSINESS, CONTINUES TO DO.
SINCE THAT TIME, I JUST PULLED SOME NUMBERS.
WE'VE GROWN OUR SALES FROM 16 MILLION TO 25 MILLION.
WE'VE HAD 51% INCREASE IN SALES JOBS.
WE INCREASED OUR JOBS BY 47%, ADDED 34 MORE JOBS DURING THAT SAME PERIOD, AND WE'VE INVESTED $20 MILLION WORTH OF TECHNOLOGY AND FACILITIES DURING THE SAME TIME.
CURRENTLY, WE'RE UNDERNEATH ANOTHER EXPANSION IN ST. TAMMANY.
WE'RE ADDING 70,000 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURING SPACE TO OUR CURRENT FACILITIES.
WE'RE MAKING A BIG COMMITMENT HERE IN LOUISIANA AND ST.
TAMMANY TO CONTINUE TO GROW OUR BUSINESS.
WE'RE THE LARGEST PROVIDER IN THE WHOLE STATE AND IN THE GULF COAST REGION.
WE BRING IT ALL HOME TO LOUISIANA.
WE'RE VERY MUCH A BELIEVER IN THIS PROGRAM. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT IMPACT FOR US.
SORRY THAT I'M A CONSULTANT RETIRED, CAN'T PREVENT THAT, BUT WE'RE DEFINITELY COMMITTED TO THIS PROGRAM.
>> REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE BOARD LANDS ON THIS MOTION, I HAVE LIVED THE EXPANSION OF MELE PRINTING BECAUSE I LIVE LITERALLY ABOUT HALF A MILE FROM THERE.
JUST FROM A GROWTH PERSPECTIVE, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THIS VOTE LANDS TODAY, I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT, MALLERY, AND ALSO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO INVESTING IN LOUISIANA AND EMPLOYING PEOPLE IN LOUISIANA, AND DOING WHAT YOU DO FROM A GROWTH PERSPECTIVE.
I'VE WATCHED IT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, AND IT IS A GREAT LOUISIANA STORY, AND I DO WANT TO SHARE THAT.
I DO UNDERSTAND THE CHAIRMAN'S PERSPECTIVE AND OUR LEGAL COUNSEL'S PERSPECTIVE ABOUT BEING BOUND BY RULES, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY PUBLICLY HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO HERE IN LOUISIANA AND WHAT YOU'VE INVESTED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT AS WELL, BUT I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A POINT. [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, THE SUGGESTION THAT WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO IMPOSE A ONE YEAR PENALTY.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS, IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR DOING SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT THAT'S HAPPENED IN PRIOR BOARDS, THE SITUATION IS SIMILAR TO THIS?
I'VE MISSED A COUPLE OF MEETINGS, BUT NOT MANY.
FRANKLY, GUYS, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED DURING THE LAST ADMINISTRATION IS ITEP WAS TURNED ON ITS HEAD.
A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENED TO ITEP THAT SOME OF US ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME BELIEVE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, BUT YET THAT POINT OF VIEW WAS NOT CARRIED BY THE MAJORITY OF THAT BOARD.
THE 2017 RULES AND THE 2018 RULES THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED THAT NOW HAS THE, AND I'LL JUST READ FROM THE RULE.
THE TERM OF THE RENEWAL CONTRACT SHALL, NOT MAY, BUT SHALL BE REDUCED BY ONE YEAR FOR EACH CALENDAR MONTH OR PORTION THEREOF THAT THE RENEWAL APPLICATION IS FILED LATE.
THAT WAS FILED UNDER THE LAST ADMINISTRATION.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIX SOME OF THAT UNDER THE NEW RULES, AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE PROGRAMS, WHAT I'LL SAY IS MORE PRO BUSINESS, THAT UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE ARE SITUATIONS LIKE THIS THAT HAPPEN, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THIS APPLICATION IS UNDER AN OLD RULE.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THE BOARD CAN'T IGNORE ITS OWN RULES.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS EVER HAPPENED.
>> IN THAT LAST SENTENCE OF THE RULE, IT SAYS THE BOARD MAY IMPOSE ANY OTHER PENALTY FOR LATE RENEWAL SUBMISSION THAT IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE.
WHAT ALTERNATIVES WOULD THAT BE?
>> FRANKLY, THE WAY DURING THE DEBATE IN WHICH THAT RULE WAS DISCUSSED, THE IDEA WAS, THERE CAN BE MORE THAN A ONE YEAR PENALTY.
IF SOMEBODY'S REALLY BEEN EGREGIOUS, YOU CAN DO MORE THAN A YEAR.
THE WAY THAT THE DISCUSSION WAS AT THE TIME THE VOTE CAME ABOUT WAS ONE YEAR IS A MINIMUM, IT'S NOT A MAXIMUM.
[00:30:05]
BUT TO YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION, HOW HAS IT BEEN INTERPRETED FROM THE TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN DEALING UNDER THESE RULES, THE SHALL MEANT SHALL.THE BOARD CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS TO, I SUPPOSE.
HAVING SAID THAT, I'M NOT THE LAWYER FOR THE BOARD, BUT LET ME PUT MY LAWYER HAT ON JUST FOR A SECOND.
ANYTIME THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US UNDER THE 2017 RULES, WHERE THE ONE YEAR PENALTY HAS BEEN APPLIED BASED ON THE SHAW LANGUAGE.
I CHOOSE TO DO OTHERWISE WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY THIS SITUATION IS DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER ONE THAT'S COME BEFORE US.
THE WORDS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS COME TO MIND.
THOSE ARE DIFFICULT WORDS TO DEFEND IN A LAWSUIT.
I RESPECTFULLY WARN THE BOARD THAT WHILE YOU MAY BE FREE TO IGNORE THAT SHALL, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A CONSEQUENCE FREE DECISION.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING.
>> THAT DAY WHEN THEY CHANGED THE RULES, AND I GOT A VISIT FROM THE STATE WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION CHANGED, AND THEY PUSHED THIS ALL TO THE PARISH, THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING.
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY MEETINGS AND BOARD AND SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS I WENT TO.
IT QUADRUPLED THE WORK THAT TOOK YOU GUYS TO IMPACT THE BUSINESS AND PUSHED IT DOWN TO THE PARISH WAS AMAZING.
I NEVER SPENT SO MANY HOURS AT A SCHOOL BOARD MEETING TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THEIR OWN PARISH, THE INVESTMENTS WE WERE MAKING, AND SO FORTH.
I TELL YOU, I LOVE WHAT THIS REPRESENTS.
THAT'S A LOT OF WORK ON THE OTHER END AND STUFF.
NOW THEY HAVE A NEW ONE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THAT'S AMAZING, THAT DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB.
I'M JUST SAYING, WE'RE IMPACTING THE ECONOMY IN A GREAT WAY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE SOME OBLIGATIONS TO LIVE UP TO, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE IMPACTING THE ECONOMY.
>> MR. MELE, WE APPRECIATE THAT.
I HOPE YOU CAN TAKE AWAY AT LEAST THE CHAIRMAN'S PERSPECTIVE THAT YOUR INVESTMENT HAS NOT GONE UNNOTICED.
>> I WILL SAY ALSO THAT UNDER THE NEW RULES, THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU HAD TO SPEND, THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN UNDER THE NEW RULES.
IT WILL BE A MUCH LIMITED ENGAGEMENT WITH THE LOCALS, LOCALS WILL [OVERLAPPING].
>> I NEED TO SAY THIS BECAUSE I FEEL IT STRONGLY.
WHILE I DID NOT LIKE WHAT HAPPENED UNDER THE LAST ADMINISTRATION WITH THE ITEP RULES, ONE OF THE SILVER LININGS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT WAS THE INCREASED AMOUNT OF ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
IF WE'LL LEARN ANYTHING FROM THIS EXPERIENCE, ENGAGEMENT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS A GOOD THING, AND IF YOU DO IT VOLUNTARILY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO, IT'S EVEN MORE VALUABLE.
I STRONGLY URGE INDUSTRY TO LEARN THE LESSON OF WHAT'S COME ABOUT THE LAST EIGHT YEARS.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE SEEN INSTEAD OF AS A PROBLEM, BUT AS A PARTNER.
IF THEY'RE TREATED AS A PARTNER, THEY WILL MORE THAN LIKELY ACT AS A PARTNER.
IN THE LEARNING EXPERIMENT, WE'RE THE FIRST PERSON IN ST. TAMMANY PARISH TO BE APPROVED.
BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S WORK ON THIS MATTER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MELE. MS. MILLER. I'M SORRY.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE MR. MILLER?
>> I THINK MR. WILLIE, ONE OF YOUR COMMENTS WAS SOMETHING ABOUT NOT LIKING.
WE DON'T LIKE THIS. WE DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH IT.
I DON'T THINK FROM THE CHAIRMAN'S INPUT TO US THAT WE OPEN UP OUR BOARD AND THE STATE TO AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF LEGAL CHALLENGES, I BELIEVE, IF WE DO THIS.
THAT THE DAY WAS ABOUT A STATE LAW.
IF WE WERE COVERED BY IF WE HAD ANY WAY TO COVER THIS, WE'D BE MORE WILLING TO DO IT.
I PROMISE YOU THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I DON'T WANT YOU TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY. I WANT YOU KNOW THE IMPACT THAT'S BEEN ON ME.
>> I DO WANT TO STATE THAT I'M YOUR NEIGHBOR.
I SIT ON THIS BOARD REPRESENTING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
WE THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DO IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT DEFINITELY SPILLS OVER TO US.
I'M SURE YOU HAVE TANGIBLE PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH YOU.
>> WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE JUST STUCK EVERY
[00:35:02]
NOW AND THAT WE WANT TO BE BUT ANYTIME YOU WANT TO EXPAND, THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT PLACE TO DO IS, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO BECOME TANGIBLE.I PROMISE IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
>>> ARE YOU GOING TO COME TO WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH?
>> I'M IN BATON ROUGE, TOO, BY THE WAY, WE HAVE A FACILITY HERE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. MS. PORTER, YOU WERE WAVING AT ME. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> HI, ROBIN PORTER EXECUTIVE COUNSEL FOR LED, I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT IN THE RULES, THERE IS A PROVISION THAT SOFTENS THIS IS HINDSIGHT, BUT IT SOFTENS THE SHALL.
523 PROVIDES FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME IF YOU REQUEST AND KNOW THINGS HAPPEN, BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO PLAN AHEAD.
IF YOU KNOW THAT POSSIBLY YOUR APPLICATION OR WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE LATE, YOU CAN GET IN A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME.
YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS.
IN ESSENCE, TO TRY TO SOFTEN THAT SHALL, THERE IS A PROVISION HERE IN THE RULES.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE STATEMENT. YES.
>> WELL. MR. CALCASIEU? YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE, JUST SO THAT COURT REPORTER CAN PICK YOU UP A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
>> SURE. I WAS JUST WONDERING IN THAT VEIN.
SO TRYING TO THINK BUT I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT.
TO SAY THAT NEVER MIND. I'M COME BACK TO ME LATER.
>> I THINK THE POINT THAT MS. PORTER IS MAKING AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
ONE AVENUE THAT PERHAPS COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN WHEN THEY GOT CLOSE TO THE DECEMBER 31, THEY COULD HAVE ASKED FOR THEY CAN'T ASK FOR THE EXTENSION AFTER DECEMBER 31, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR BEFORE THE DECEMBER 31 DATE.
BUT I THINK UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY'RE DESCRIBED, THIS IS SOMETHING THE CONSULTANT WAS RETIRED AND THERE WAS NOBODY THERE WAS NOBODY PAYING ATTENTION TO THE CALENDAR.
THE RULES DID TRY TO PROVIDE A SAFE LANDING SPOT, BUT STILL IN ALL THE SHALL IS THE SHALL, MR. KELLY?
>> I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT IS THERE ANY DOWNSIDE THAT A PARTICIPANT IN THE PROGRAM HAS TO FILING ONE OF THESE EXTENSIONS? IS THERE LIKE A FEE THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> I'M JUST THINKING LIKE, LIKE EVERY YEAR, I ALWAYS FILE AN EXTENSION ON MY TAXES.
I'M JUST LIKE, IS THIS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE MAYBE PEOPLE CAN BE ADVISED, LIKE YOU SHOULD JUST ALWAYS FLEW THE EXTENSION WE YOU NEED IT OR NOT? I DON'T KNOW.
>> I DON'T THINK WE'VE RUN INTO THAT PROBLEM.
>> THAT'S FAIR QUESTION. MR. REMEDIES. YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT A OLIVE WAS FOR A DIFFERENT PROGRAM THAT WHEN THE NEW RULES TAKE EFFECT, THAT APPLICANTS WERE ABLE TO GO BACK AND REVISE THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE COULD LOOK AT OR IS THERE A SCENARIO WHERE WE COULD ADDRESS LATER WHERE MAYBE SOMEONE LIKE THIS COMPANY COULD COME BACK AND MAKE A REVISION TO THEIR APPLICATION AND OR WHEN WE MAKE THE DECISION TODAY IS IT'S IN STONE FOREVER?
>> WELL, FOR MELE PRINTING IT WILL BE IN STONE FOREVER.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, IS THERE A WAY TO AMELIORATE THIS PROBLEM FOR 2017 AND 2018 RULES, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN THINK ABOUT.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. MR. MELE IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION THAT I THINK WE CAN SEE IS THERE A WAY TO SOFTEN THIS BLOW GOING FORWARD?
>> YEAH, IF WE'RE ABLE TO ALLOW OTHER APPLICANTS TO REVISE THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS FOR OTHER REASONS, IF WE HAVE SOMEONE OR A CORPORATION THAT HAS TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A PRUDENT.
>> MELE IS ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPT OUT PROVISION AND REMOVE THE JOBS AND PAY ROLL REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE UNDER THIS CONTRACT.
BUT FOR THIS RENEWAL TERM, THAT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THAT THE RENEWAL WAS FILED LATE.
>> I THINK WHERE MR. REMEDIES IS GOING IS, CAN WE FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO GO BACK AND GET RID OF THE SHALL IN 2017 AND 2018 RULES?
>> OR IF IT GIVES THE BOARD THE LEAD WAY TO MAKE THE DECISION BASED ON THE THE CASE.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION IS, CAN WE AMEND OUT THE SHALL AT SOME POINT? I THINK I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT,
[00:40:01]
BUT I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT.THANK YOU, MR. REMEDIES. MR. CALCASIEU.
>> MAYBE ALSO IN THE AMENDMENT ALLOWING FOR FRACTIONAL YEARS AS PART OF THE PENALTY.
>> IF WE EXPLORE THAT POSSIBILITY, THEN THERE'S LOTS OF WAYS TO DO IT.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT INTERNALLY, AND THEN I THINK IT'S AN IDEA TO BE EXPLORED.
I JUST LIKE TO SAY PARTIAL YEARS, I DON'T THINK REALLY WOULD WORK FOR THIS DUE TO IT BEING IN TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM AND IT GOING BY PROPERTY TAXING YEARS.
>> I'VE LEARNED MORE ABOUT PROPERTY TAX THAN I EVER DECIDED I EVER WANTED.
THERE WAS A REASON I DIDN'T BECOME AN ACCOUNTANT.
BUT I'VE BEEN FORCED THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THIS THAN I WANT TO.
NOW, I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THAT RIGHT, MS. SIMMONS? HAVE NOT HAD A VOTE. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF DISCUSSION.
NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION THAT WOULD GRANT THE RENEWAL, BUT WITH A ONE YEAR PENALTY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, MR. MELE.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE EIGHT TIMELY RENEWALS FOLLOWING THE POST EO 2018 RULES, 20190030 COMMUNITY COFFEE COMPANY, LOC, AND JEFFERSON PARISH, 20170416 CORNERSTONE CHEMICAL COMPANY, JEFFERSON PARISH, 20190026 INTERNATIONAL MEZZO TECHNOLOGIES EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, 20190361 KENNEDY RICE MILL LLC AND MOREHOUSE PARISH, 20180087-B, LASALLE LUMBER COMPANY, LLC, LASALLE PARISH, 20170480 LOUISIANA SPIRITS LLC, JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH, 20180460 TERNIUM USA INC CADDO PARISH, AND 20170649 VEOLIA, NORTH AMERICA REGENERATION SERVICES LLC AND ASCENSION PARISH.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE RENEWALS? MOTION FOR MR. MOSS, SECOND FOR MR. REMEDIES. 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.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE ONE CHANGE IN NAME AMENDMENT REQUEST.
DRIFTWOOD, LNG, LLC, 20161566, NEW NAME LOUISIANA LNG INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC AND CALCAS PARISH.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS CHANGE IN NAME FROM MOTION FROM MR. MOSS.
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 IS NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE SIX CANCELLATION REQUEST.
FREEPOINT ECO-SYSTEMS, BATON ROSE RECYCLING LLC, 20230005 ASCENSION PARISH, COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION.
MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL, AMERICA INC 20200516, AND ASCENSION PARISH COMPANY REQUESTS CANCELLATION, AND MOSAIC FERTILIZER LLC, 20160953, 20160957, 20160959 AND 20160961, ALL IN ST. JAMES PARISH, AND COMPANY IS REQUESTING CANCELLATION.
>> WE'VE HAD A REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM MISS RHONDA BOATNER ON THE MITSUBISHI CANCELLATION.
>> RHONDA BOATNER DDA CONSULTANTS.
THE COMPANY IS REQUESTING CANCELLATION OF THEIR ITEP CONTRACT BECAUSE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN CANCELED AND THEY HAVE A LETTER THAT THEY WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO READ DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2025, DEAR MR. JONES.
I AM WRITING ON BEHALF OF MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL AMERICA TO EXPRESS THE COMPANY'S THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT PROVIDED TO IT BY THE LOUISIANA BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
LOUISIANA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BY WAY OF THE QUALITY JOBS AND TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAMS, DURING THE PERIOD, IT WAS DEVELOPING ITS INVESTMENT CASE FOR ITS PROPOSED METHYL METHACRYLATE, MMA PLANT AT GEISMAR.
AS YOU WILL KNOW, THE MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL GROUP BOARD CONCLUDED IN JANUARY 2025, THAT UNFORTUNATELY, IT WOULD NOT PROCEED WITH THIS INVESTMENT.
[00:45:02]
PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT THIS DECISION WAS DRIVEN PRIMARILY BY MMA MARKET NEEDS ASSESSMENT OVERLAID BY THE COST OF THE INVESTMENT, WHICH HAD SIGNIFICANTLY ESCALATED FROM THE INITIAL INVESTMENT APPRAISAL PRIMARILY DUE TO CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIAL COST INFLATION, AND NOT BY ANY OTHER FACTORS.THE COMPANY AND THE PROJECT TEAM WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXCELLENT SUPPORT IT RECEIVED FROM YOURSELVES, THE ASCENSION PARISH, OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES, LOCAL INDUSTRY, AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.
YOU'RE SINCERELY, J. SMITH, AMERICA SENIOR BUSINESS DIRECTOR METHACRYLATES.
>> THANK YOU. PLEASE EXTEND TO THOSE AT MITSUBISHI.
WE ARE DISAPPOINTED WITH THEIR DECISION, BUT MARKETS ARE MARKETS AND WE UNDERSTAND.
>> WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE CANCELLATIONS OF A MOTION FOR 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? THERE IS NONE THE MOTION CARRIES.
>> LAST, WE HAVE ONE SPECIAL REQUEST FROM BIENVILLE LUMBER COMPANY, LLC FOR CONTRACT 20220302.
BIENVILLE LUMBER COMPANY INC IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THEIR EXISTING EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT 20220302-ITE, TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL YEAR TO THE CHART IN SECTION 4.02(B), WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS FILED IN DECEMBER 2023, A PHASE APPLICATION FOR 2024 PROPERTY WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR, BUT DUE TO UNFORESEEN DELAYS, A PHASE APPLICATION NOW NEEDS TO BE ADDED AS PART OF THE OVERALL PROJECT.
>> THIS IS SIMPLY AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXHIBIT A TO ADD THIS ADDITIONAL INSTALLATION, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> ALLOW THEM TO FILE AN ADDITIONAL PHASE APPLICATION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT TO THEIR CONTRACT. MOTION FOR MR. REMEDIES. SECOND SECRETARY BOURGEOIS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD.
HEARING NONE, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.
APPRECIATE YOU ALL HELP TODAY.
>> I HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD.
[8. Other Business-Resolution BC&I ITEP for Act 590]
[INAUDIBLE]. I THINK YOU GET TO READ IT, MR. MELE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION.>> IS MY THIRD GRAD READING LEVEL.
WE HAVE A RESOLUTION PRESENTING TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION, RESOLUTION OF THE LOUISIANA BOARD OF COMMERCE INDUSTRY, WHEREAS THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES AN ARTICLE 7, SECTION 21 (F), THAT THE STATE BOARD OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNOR MAY ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE EXEMPTION FROM AD VALOREM TAXES OF A NEW MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENT OR IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENT ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE BOARD WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNOR DEEMS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE.
AND WHEREAS, BY VIRTUE OF THIS PROVISION, THE BOARD IS SOLELY AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER THE GRANTING SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION AND PURSUANT TO THAT END, THIS BOARD.
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LOUISIANA DEVELOPMENT HAS ESTABLISHED THE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM, ITEP FORMULATES AND PROMULGATES RULES FOR ITEP THAT PROMOTE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE, AND WHEREAS DURING THE 2024 REGULAR SESSION, THE LEGISLATURE PASSED, AND GOVERNOR SIGNED ACT 590, WHICH ADDED LOUISIANA R. S.
36:104(B)(10) THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF LOUISIANA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
SECTION 104B-10 PROVIDES THAT, "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THE LAW TO THE CONTRARY, EXERCISE DISCRETION IN RECONSIDERING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ANY AMOUNTS OF INCENTIVE ADMINISTERED BY LOUISIANA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LED, WHEN THE BASIS OF THE DISALLOWANCE RELATES TO THE EXPIRATION OF FILING DEADLINES OR THE FAILURE TO PERFORM A REQUIREMENT OF THE PROGRAM DUE TO THE OCCURRENCE OF AN EVENT BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE INCENTIVE RECIPIENT.
WHEREAS THE BOARD IS COMMITTED TO CONTINUANCE OF PROMOTING
[00:50:02]
INCREASED EFFICIENCY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM WHEREAS THE BOARD RECOGNIZES THAT THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE SECRETARY OF LED IN LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 31:04(B)(10) WILL PROMOTE INCREASED EFFICIENCY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ITEP BY ALLOWING THE SECRETARY OF LOUISIANA DEVELOPMENT TO EXERCISE DISCRETION IN RECONSIDERING THE DISALLOWANCE OF AN ITEP INCENTIVE AMOUNT ON THE GROUNDS PROVIDED IN LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 31:04(B) (10), THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LOUISIANA BOARD OF COMMERCE INDUSTRY, THAT THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE SECRETARY OF LED BY LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTE 36:104(B)(10) SHALL APPLY TO THE INDUSTRIAL TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM.THAT IS THE FULL RESOLUTION, WOULD YOU ALL ALL LIKE TO KNOW HOW TO REPEAT THAT REVISED STATUTE.
I THINK YOU ALL SHOULD ALL KNOW THE NUMBERS BY NOW.
IS THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION?
>> THAT'S THE MOTION. YES, SIR.
>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. MOSS.
MS. PORTER, CAN I GET YOU TO COME TO THE TABLE, PLEASE?
>> WHILE MR. MILLER HAS DONE AN AMAZING JOB OF READING THE RESOLUTION TO US, COULD YOU EXPLAIN ITS PRACTICAL IMPACT FOR US?
>> YES. UNLIKE OTHER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS THAT YOU GUYS OVERSEE, IT'S THE OPINION OF LED THAT THE BOARD ISSUE THIS RESOLUTION GRANTING AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE AUTHORITY THAT'S GIVEN UNDER THE ACT 590 SO THAT WE CAN PROCEED IN EVALUATING, RESOLVING, OR REVIEWING CERTAIN ISSUES THAT MAY ARISE AND NOT HAVE TO COME IN THAT INSTANCE BEFORE THE BOARD.
BASICALLY, WHAT I'M INDICATING IS THIS, OH, GOD I DON'T KNOW.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO INDICATE IS THAT THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION.
I'M SORRY, GUYS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S WRONG TODAY.
>> I REALLY DON'T KNOW. I HAD COVID.
>> I HAVE GOT IT, ROBIN. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M SO SORRY. I REALLY APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
>> I WILL PICK UP VERY LAYMAN'S TERMS ANYWAY BECAUSE WHILE ROBIN'S DOING A FABULOUS JOB OF EXPLAINING IT IN LEGAL TERMS, I'LL TELL YOU THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THIS.
IT WAS ACTUALLY SENATOR [INAUDIBLE] BILL THIS PAST SESSION THAT RESTRUCTURED OUR DEPARTMENT.
PART OF THAT GAVE THE SECRETARY AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS WHEN IT INVOLVED DISCREPANCIES IN FILING DEADLINES AND ALL OF OUR INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THAT IS THAT WHEN I WALKED IN IN JANUARY OF LAST YEAR, I WALKED INTO ABOUT 25 UNRESOLVED POTENTIAL LAWSUITS OR ACTIVE LAWSUITS, JUST INVOLVING SETTLEMENTS, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH WERE INVOLVED AROUND COVID ISSUES AND TIMING THAT PEOPLE COULD NOT HAVE ANTICIPATED BASED ON HOW THE WORLD CHANGED.
THE BILL, THEN THE ACT, GAVE THE SECRETARY THE ABILITY TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS AROUND THOSE DISAGREEMENTS.
THAT THEN INVOLVED THE WAY THE ACT WAS WORDED, IT INVOLVED AN APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF REVENUE FOR THOSE INCENTIVES THAT INVOLVED HIM AND THE GOVERNOR.
IT WAS ROBIN AND LEGAL COUNSEL'S ASSERTION THAT THAT SAME AUTHORITY HAD TO BE RATIFIED, IF YOU WILL, BY THIS BOARD TO GIVE ME THAT ABILITY TO ENTER INTO THIS SETTLEMENT.
>> HOPEFULLY, LET ME REGAIN SOME SENSE OF NOT BEING SO EMBARRASSED.
THE REASON IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD IS BECAUSE THE ITEP PROGRAM IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM.
IN THE CONSTITUTION, BASICALLY, WHAT'S PROVIDED IS THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD, ALONG WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNOR TO APPROVE ITEP AGREEMENTS THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE.
THEREFORE, UNLIKE OTHER INCENTIVES THAT'S BROUGHT BEFORE YOU, WE FELT, AND I FELT, IT WAS NECESSARY TO TAKE THIS ADDITIONAL STEP TO ASK THAT YOU GUYS PROVIDE, UNDER RESOLUTION, THE UNDERSTANDING AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THIS PARTICULAR ACT WE WOULD PERFORM THE SAME SERVICES AND ACTS FOR ITEP AS WE DO FOR EZ, QJ, AND THE OTHER INCENTIVES.
I'M SO SORRY. [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS NOT LIKE ME.
>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT, MS. PORTER. I APOLOGIZE.
>> I PUT YOU ON THE SPOT THIS MORNING SO I APOLOGIZE FOR IT.
[LAUGHTER] BUT NO, NOT AT ALL.
[00:55:01]
>> NO WORRIES. MR. [INAUDIBLE], DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. LET'S LOOK BEYOND SECRETARY BOURGEOIS TERM AND ASSUME THAT MAYBE SOMEONE THAT MAY NOT BE AS BUSINESS-FRIENDLY IS APPOINTED TO THE CABINET POSITION.
CAN AN APPLICANT REQUEST A HEARING OR A DECISION BY THE BOARD GIVEN THIS RESOLUTION, OR DOES THE SECRETARY MAKE THE FINAL DECISION AND THEY HAVE NO RECOURSE OTHER THAN A LAWSUIT?
ANYTIME THERE'S RULES AND STATUTE THAT INDICATES THAT WHOMEVER WILL WANT TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, YOU CAN MAKE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE BOARD.
THERE ARE PROCESSES. IN NO WAY DOES THIS RESOLUTION TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ANY COMPANY OR WHOMEVER WILL WANT TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD?
>> OKAY. VERY GOOD. I WAS JUST THINKING OF CASE SCENARIO [OVERLAPPING].
>> RIGHT. THAT DOES NOT CHANGE.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> PRACTICALLY SECRETARY BOURGEOIS JUST APPLIES TO LATE FILINGS.
WHAT ELSE WOULD BE UNDER THAT DISCRETION?
>> LATE FILINGS, SAY LIKE QJ, IF CERTAIN POSITION IS DECLARED AS ELIGIBLE, POSSIBLY MAY BE ELIGIBLE, NOT ELIGIBLE, THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS.
>> WOULD THIS BE APPLIED POSTHUMOUSLY TO DECISIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS MADE PREVIOUSLY?
>> THAT'S THE QUESTION I'M GOING TO IN MY MIND AS WE SIT HERE TODAY.
WHAT ABOUT MR. MELE SITUATION?
>> I GUESS THE BIGGER QUESTION IS, DOES THE STATUTE, WHICH THIS RESOLUTION IS ESSENTIALLY MIRRORING GIVE THE SECRETARY THE ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION THAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING RULES? IF THE RULE SAYS SHALL, DOES THE SECRETARY HAVE THE ABILITY TO IGNORE THE SHALL?
>> THE SECRETARY DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO IGNORE THE SHALL.
>> THEN IN WHAT SITUATION WOULD SHE BE EXERCISING THIS DISCRETION? THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS GOING ON IN ALL THE BOARD MEMBER'S MINDS THIS MORNING, I THINK, GIVEN THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAVE WITH THE MELE SITUATION.
IF IN FACT, THE SECRETARY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING THAT THE BOARD COULD NOT DO, WHICH I THINK IS THE ANSWER.
I THINK IT JUST GIVES THE ABILITY.
I THINK MAYBE SOME OTHER FURTHER BACKGROUND IS REQUIRED.
AS MS. PORTER MENTIONED, ITEP IS CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
UNLIKE QUALITY JOBS, ENTERPRISE ZONE, RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT AND ITEP ARE BOTH IN ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
NOW, ARGUABLY, THAT'S ALL ABOUT TO CHANGE.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, TODAY, AND HISTORICALLY, THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THERE'S ONLY ONE GROUP AND ONE PERSON THAT HAS SAY SO OVER THE ITEP PROGRAM, THAT IS THIS BOARD AND THE GOVERNOR. THAT'S IT.
>> IT'S MY IMPRESSION THEN THAT THE BOARD'S RULES ARE STILL THE BOARD'S RULES.
WHILE THE STATUTE AND THIS RESOLUTION MAY GIVE THE SECRETARY DISCRETION, IT'S ONLY DISCRETION THAT THIS BOARD WOULD HAVE?
>> SHE DOESN'T HAVE SOME SUPER APPEAL POWER THAT IS OVER AND BEYOND WHAT THIS BOARD DOES.
>> THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MELE.
>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MELE ANYMORE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT ANYTHING YOU WANT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THINGS HAPPENING. IS WHAT STRUCK ME, ONE THAT THE CHAIRMAN MADE ABOUT, AND LOOKING FOR WAYS TO ENABLE THE APPLICANT WHO WAS LATE BY TWO WEEKS, THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE AND NOT BE PENALIZED.
YOU'D USE THE WORD, I'M GOING TO PARAPHRASE HERE, AS YOU ALL REVIEWED THE POSSIBILITY OF LITIGATION MOVING FORWARD CAN, IN ANY FUTURE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE MADE, LOOK AT DEGREES.
MEANING THAT APPLICANT WAS TWO WEEKS LATE AND TO THE DEGREE OF HOW THEY'VE PERFORMED OVER THE HISTORY OF THEIR ITEP, IT'S EXEMPLARY.
AS OPPOSED TO, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO FILE A SUIT,
[01:00:04]
ON WHAT BASIS ARE THEY FILING? WERE THEY TWO WEEKS OR TWO YEARS LATE? WERE THEY IN GOOD STANDING WITH ALL OF THE OTHER BOXES THAT NEED TO BE CHECKED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE PROGRAM SUCH AS JOBS AND WHATNOT? SOMETHING TO EXPLORE, TO CREATE THAT LATITUDE BY THE SECRETARY OR THIS BOARD TO BE COMFORTABLE IN MAKING EXCEPTIONS BASED OFF OF DEGREES OF TARDINESS.>> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT.
>> MR. CALCASIEU, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> YES. I WAS GOING TO ASK [OVERLAPPING].
>> SPEAK INTO THE MICE, PLEASE.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL INCENTIVE PROGRAMS THAT WERE, BUT YOU ANSWERED THAT, THAT THERE'S TWO.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ONES? AND IF SO, HOW ARE THEY GOVERNED IN A SIMILAR WAY?
>> I KNOW, BUT DOES THE SECRETARY HAVE THIS DISCRETION UNDER RTA?
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO SINCE IT'S UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
SHE HAS THE AUTHORITY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ONE THAT'S NAMED SPECIFICALLY WITH THE BOARD.
>> BOARD DOESN'T HAVE [OVERLAPPING]?
>> ACTUALLY RTA, [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS A HISTORY LESSON THAT NOBODY REALLY CARES ABOUT BUT ME, BUT I'M GOING TO FUN FACT TO KNOW AND TELL.
WHEN THE ARTICLE 7 WAS DEBATED BACK IN 1972, THERE WERE TWO PROVISIONS THAT ALLOWED FOR LOCAL ENGAGEMENT.
ONE WAS ITEP PROGRAM AND THE RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM.
AS THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION WAS INTRODUCED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, IT REQUIRED LOCAL ENGAGEMENT IN BOTH.
BY AMENDMENT, THE LOCAL ENGAGEMENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE ITEP PROVISION, BUT NOT REMOVED FROM RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENT.
THAT'S THE REASON, I BELIEVE, FRANKLY, THAT THE LAST ADMINISTRATION GOT IT WRONG WHEN THEY INTRODUCED LOCAL ENGAGEMENT IN THE ITEP PROGRAM.
I THINK IT WAS ARGUABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT NOBODY DECIDED TO BRING THAT ACTION.
BUT RTA, INTERESTINGLY, NOW, WHEN THE RESTORATION TAX ABATEMENTS COME BEFORE YOU ALL NOW, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN TO THE LOCALS BEFORE IT GETS TO US.
THE LOCALS HAVE ALREADY SAID GRACE OVER THOSE PROGRAMS BEFORE IT GETS TO US BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT REQUIRES IN THE CONSTITUTION.
>> CORRECT. JUST AS ROBBY INDICATED, REPEATING THAT SECTION OF THE REVISED STATUTE, IT DOES INDICATE THE SECRETARY WILL EXERCISE DISCRETION IN RECONSIDERING THE DISALLOWANCE.
WHOMEVER THE SECRETARY MAY BE, SHE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A SHALL, BUT THERE'S ALSO WHATEVER TYPE OF DISCRETION THAT MAY BE ABLE TO EXERCISE AROUND THAT.
>> TO THE DEGREE THAT THE RULES ALLOW DISCRETION, WE'RE GIVING THAT DISCRETION TO THE SECRETARY. TO MR. REMEDIES' POINT, IF THAT DISCRETION IS UNPLEASANT, THEY HAVE AN APPEAL RIGHT TO THE BOARD OF COMMERCE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE SUBJECTIVE PIECE OF THIS IS THE EVENT BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE INCENTIVE RECIPIENT?
>> YES. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. MR. CALCASIEU.
>> IF THE BOARD MAKES THIS RESOLUTION, CAN WE UNDO IT AT SOME DATE IN THE FUTURE?
>> YES. ABSOLUTELY. ALL RESOLUTIONS ARE REVERSIBLE.
>> MS. BOURGEOIS WOULD NOT, BUT IF ONE OF HER SUCCESSORS TRIES TO MISBEHAVE, THIS BOARD WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE THAT POWER AWAY.
>> QUESTION, JUST FOR CLARITY, AND FORGIVE ME, IT'S PROBABLY ONLY ONE.
BUT IF ON THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION THAT WE LOOKED AT, THEY INDICATED THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO OPTIONS.
THIS RESOLUTION GRANTS OTHER OPTIONS TO THE SECRETARY, WHICH I THINK IS WONDERFUL FOR EFFICIENCY, BUT HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT THAT?
>> IT WOULD NOT. FAIR QUESTION.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION.
I HATE TO DO THIS, BUT UNDER THE MELE SITUATION, SHE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY DISCRETION TO DO ANYTHING.
BECAUSE THE BOARD DOESN'T, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE ANY DISCRETION BECAUSE THE WORD SHALL SAYS SHALL.
IF YOU'RE LATE, IT'S A ONE-YEAR PENALTY.
SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY UNDER THE RULES TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT.
THERE ARE OTHER SITUATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE PRE-2016 EO, THE SHALL, IT DOES NOT EXIST.
>> OKAY. SO IT'S ONLY THE APPLICATIONS DURING A CERTAIN SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME?
[01:05:02]
>> ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE 2017 RULES, THE 2017 RULES, THE 2018 RULES HAVE THE SHALL WORD IN THERE.
IT'S PURELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.
FOR EXAMPLE, ANY PRE-2016 EO RULES, THE SECRETARY WOULD HAVE THE SAME DISCRETION THIS BOARD HAS, AND THAT IS GIVE WHATEVER PENALTY WE DEEM APPROPRIATE.
THIS BOARD HAS, FOR PRE-EO SITUATIONS, WE HAVE EXERCISED THAT DISCRETION.
MOST OF THE TIME IT'S BEEN A YEAR PENALTY, BUT NOT EVERY TIME.
>> CORRECT. ALSO, IN THAT PROVISION, THERE IS THE CATCH-ALL.
THE BOARD MAY IMPOSE ANY OTHER PENALTY FOR LATE FILING THAT IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE.
>> YEAH. AGAIN, IN 2017 AND 2018 RULES, WHEN THAT WAS DEBATED, WHAT IT MEANT WAS, IT'S A FLOOR, NOT A CEILING.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. MELE?
>> BUT IT'S ONLY FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE APPLICATIONS WERE FILED FOR LIKE TWO YEARS.
ANYTHING FILED AFTER THAT, YOU'RE SAYING HERE [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO. ANYTHING BEFORE 2016, IF THERE ARE ANY PROGRAMS OUT THERE THAT WERE FILED PRIOR TO 2016 WHEN THE 2016 EO WENT INTO EFFECT, THERE'S ABSOLUTE DISCRETION.
YOU CAN PUT ANY PENALTY YOU WANT TO ON THERE.
THERE'S NO SHALL IN THERE, IT'S A MAY.
THEN UNDER THE EDWARD'S ADMINISTRATION, WHEN THE NEW EO WAS PASSED, AND WE IMPLEMENTED THE 2017 AND 2018 RULES, THAT MAY WAS REPLACED WITH A SHALL BECAUSE THAT BOARD WANTED TO BE MORE PUNITIVE AGAINST INDUSTRY THAN PREVIOUS LAW HAD EVER REQUIRED.
I BELIEVE WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION, AND HOPEFULLY WITH THE 2024 RULES THAT WILL GO INTO EFFECT MARCH 20TH, WE WILL GO BACK TO SOME SEMBLANCE OF REASONABILITY.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I [INAUDIBLE].
>> AGAIN, I WANT TO SPEAK TO WHAT I BELIEVE THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION IS AND THE REASON BEHIND ROBIN'S INTEREST IN OFFERING YOU CONSIDERING THIS RESOLUTION.
>> WHEN WE PASSED THE BILL, THERE WASN'T THE ABILITY FOR DISCRETION IN THESE HEARINGS AND EVERY OTHER RIGHT INCENTIVE THAT WE HAVE.
ITAP WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY OR THE INCENTIVES THAT WELL, IT'S ITAP FOR THIS CONVERSATION.
ITAP WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED IN THE BILL THAT WAY, BECAUSE IN PRACTICAL APPLICATION, WE ALL AS A BOARD, HAVE THE VERY DISCRETION THAT BILL WAS SEEKING THE SECRETARY HAD FOR OTHER INCENTIVES.
REMAINING SILENT ON THIS, I BELIEVE STILL, WE ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENTER INSIDE THE RULES, NEGOTIATED SOLUTIONS.
I GUESS, ROBIN AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD SAY THAT.
IT WAS LEGAL COUNSEL'S INTEREST TO MAKE SURE WE CODIFIED THE INTENTION OF THE BILL.
BUT THAT'S WHY THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT.
THIS EXACT DISCRETION, THE CONVERSATION, THE HEARING WE HAD ABOUT THE MELY EXAMPLE DOESN'T HAPPEN IN OUR OTHER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. IN OUR OTHER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, THIS LEGISLATIVE ACT GAVE ME THE ABILITY TO ENTER INTO WISELY AND ADVISE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENTS THAT THEN THE SECRETARY OF REVENUE AND THE GOVERNOR STILL HAVE TO APPROVE.
A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT HERE. IT'S ROBIN'S ASSERTION THAT WE NEED TO CODIFY THAT.
THIS BOARD NEEDS TO CODIFY MY ABILITY TO DO THAT.
WHEN IN REALITY, THIS BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS.
>> I'LL BE FRANK. I THINK THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACT UNDER THIS RESOLUTION WILL BE LIMITED BECAUSE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER.
WHEN WE GET TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF LATE FILINGS AND THAT SORT OF THING, THE ONLY DISCRETION IS PRE 2016 EO, AND THERE'S PRECIOUS FEW OF THOSE LEFT.
YOU KNOW, THERE JUST AREN'T THAT MANY LEFT.
THERE MAY BE OTHER SITUATIONS THAT I'M NOT THINKING OF, AND I THINK MISS PORTER'S DESIRE HERE IS, LET'S CATCH ALL THAT.
THERE MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE COME UP THAT I'M NOT THINKING OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THIS MORNING, BUT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I THINK THAT THE EFFECT OF THIS RESOLUTION WILL BE VERY LIMITED BECAUSE OF THE SHOW LANGUAGE AS FAR AT LEAST AS IT REFERS TO FILING DEADLINES, THAT THING.
MISS VILA, ARE YOU TRYING TO GET MY ATTENTION?
[01:10:02]
YOU'RE LEANING. I DON'T WANT YOU TO GET A CROOK IN YOUR NECK.>> I WAS LEANING JUST ABI A DEPUTY SECRETARY CFO FOR LED.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT JUST AREN'T IN RULES, AND THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE FEEL THIS RESOLUTION WILL ALLOW THE SECRETARY TO ALLOW US, A DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED WITH A POSSIBLE ADVANCE OR APPLICATION THAT WE COULDN'T PROCEED TO THE BOARD WITH.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHATEVER DISCRETION, A RESOLUTION THAT COMES FROM THE SECRETARY FOR THIS RESOLUTION, WHATEVER APPLICANT THAT IS, IT'S STILL GOING TO COME TO THE BOARD FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
YOU'LL HAVE TO HEAR WHAT HAPPENED WHICH THEN ALLOWED THAT PROJECT TO COME TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
BECAUSE WITHOUT THIS RESOLUTION, THERE'S SOME PROJECTS THAT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT BECAUSE IT NEVER ADVANCED TO AN APPLICATION STAGE BECAUSE OF SOPS OR WHATEVER THAT WE HAVE INTERNALLY.
I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT.
>> IT GIVES HER THE ABILITY TO BREAK A LOG JAM INTERNALLY WHEN ONE EXISTS. IS THAT FAIR?
>> IT GIVES HER THE ABILITY TO BREAK A LOG JAM.
>> BUT IT IS STILL GOING TO COME TO THE BOARD.
WHICH THE APPLICANT WILL STILL HAVE TO COME, EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY RIGHT NOW TO EVEN BRING THAT TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THE SITUATION ISN'T NECESSARILY IN RULE.
EVERYTHING'S NOT GOING TO BE IN RULE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT.
>> AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS FOR CLARITY, NOT A STATEMENT. THIS IS A QUESTION.
TO ANN'S POINT, ANYTHING THAT WE PERHAPS INTERNALLY WOULD USE DISCRETION ON CREATING.
THAT ULTIMATE DECISION COMES HERE? THAT'S A QUESTION? YES. THEN I THINK THAT ANSWERS YOUR POINT QUESTION.
>> WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
YOU'RE CALLING FOR THE QUESTION. WE CAN DO THAT.
>> JUST ONE MORE I APOLOGIZE FOR BELABORING THE POINT.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO AN EVENT BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE INCENTIVE RECIPIENT, WHEN ACT 590 WAS LEGISLATED, WAS THERE ANY DEBATE DURING THAT PROCESS ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE APPLICATION OF THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE? PRACTICALLY, WHAT I'M ASKING IS IS THIS DISCRETION MEANT TO APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO COVID RELATED TYPE.
>> NO. I BELIEVE THE INTENTION WAS COVID IS THE EXAMPLE OF THE UNANTICIPATED. I'M SORRY.
>> WE MAY LET THE AUTHOR SPEAK.[OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, THAT WAS NOT, AND REPRESENTATIVE DEAL CARRIED IT ON THE HOUSE SIDE, AND HE WAS SHAKING HIS HEAD.
THE CLEAR INTENT OF ACT 590 WAS TO PUT EVERY AT THIS LADY'S DISPOSAL TO ALLOW THOSE LOG JAMS TO BE BROKEN.
ANYTHING THAT WAS A DETERRENT TO BRING IN BUSINESSES IN LOUISIANA WOULD BE PART OF THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF, SO THAT WAS THE INTENT. THANK YOU.
>> VERY GOOD. GOOD DISCUSSION.
I THINK A LOT OF GOOD CLARITY HERE AND PERHAPS BETTER UNDERSTANDING ON HOW THINGS WORK.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD. HEARING NONE.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND.
>> ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
MADAM SECRETARY, ENLIGHTEN US, PLEASE.
WELL, BEFORE I ENLIGHTEN YOU, I THINK WE HAVE AN IMPORTANT FUNCTION TODAY.
OH, WE ARE REQUIRED TO ELECT OUR OFFICERS.
THIS BOARD NEEDS TO PUT OFFICERS IN PLACE TO DO THE BEST JOB.
WE CAN IMAGINE TO NOT ONLY RUN THESE MEETINGS, BUT WALK US THROUGH THESE PROCESSES.
PURELY FROM THE REMARKABLE EXPERIENCE I'VE HAD WITH THE CHAIRMAN AND THE VICE CHAIR AND MY NOW ONE YEAR AND ONE MONTH EXPERIENCE.
IT IS MY PLEASURE AND HOPE TO BOTH NOMINATE AND HOPE THAT THEY WILL SERVE JERRY JONES AS CHAIRMAN AGAIN, AND ROBBIE MILLER AS VICE CHAIR CONTINUING, AND THAT IS IN THE FORM OF A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, MR. CALLEN? GREAT. IF ANY OTHER LISTEN, THE PAY IS GOOD, Y'ALL.
WE EARN TWICE OUR ANNUAL WAGE RIGHT HERE IN THIS MEETING, BUT MR. MILLER, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT NOMINATION? I WILL ACCEPT THE NOMINATION.
ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE.
THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[01:15:01]
A FEW OF US ON THIS BOARD HAVE BEEN HERE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AND A MONTH.THE WORK THAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH THIS BOARD ALREADY AND WITH THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE ON THE ITAP RULES ALREADY, Y'ALL DON'T KNOW IT, BUT IT'S HISTORIC.
YOU WILL BE PART OF SOMETHING THAT WILL BE GOOD FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA GOING ALONG FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE, AND I MEAN THAT IN ALL SINCERITY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, TELL US WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE STATE.
[9. Secretary Remarks – Secretary Susan Bourgeois]
>> WELL, WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S A GOOD SEGUE BECAUSE ITAP WAS THE FIRST THING ON MY LIST, BUT I DO WANT TO CONTINUE WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
I DO THINK IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THE FOLKS IN THIS ROOM AND THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND THE AMOUNT OF TIME, THE AMOUNT OF HOURS.
THAT NOT JUST THE FOLKS ON THIS BOARD, BUT PARTICULARLY THE LEADERSHIP HAVE PUT INTO THIS AND TO THE TEAM, OUR STAFF WHO HAVE DONE THIS.
I WANT TO JUST REMIND EVERYONE OF SOME REALLY IMPORTANT THRESHOLDS HERE.
THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE NEW ITAP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON FEBRUARY 21 OF LAST YEAR.
I KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE SURPRISED ME WITH IT, NUMBER 1, AND NUMBER 2, IT WAS MY BIRTHDAY.
THAT'S WHY I KNOW WHAT DAY IT WAS.
BUT ON MARCH 20, TO THE CHAIRMAN'S POINT, WE WILL FINALIZE THE NEW RULES FOR WHAT IS REALLY FUNCTIONALLY A VERY NEW PROGRAM.
THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S NOTABLE.
BUT WHAT I HOPE IS AS OR MORE NOTABLE IS THE AMOUNT OF OUTREACH, THE AMOUNT OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT WE'VE HAD, THE AMOUNT OF INPUT WE'VE HAD, THAT THIS WHILE IT WAS A STAFF FUNCTION AND A BOARD FUNCTION IN A LOT OF THE WORK.
THE PRODUCT IS REALLY AN ALL OF LOUISIANA PRODUCT, AND I HOPE Y'ALL HAVE HAD THAT SAME EXPERIENCE, AND I'M INCREDIBLY PROUD OF IT.
WHAT I WILL ALSO OFFER IS THAT INTERNALLY, OUR TEAM IS DOING THE EXACT SAME WORK TO MAKE SURE WE ARE POSITIONED FOR MARCH 20, TO BEGIN TO HEAR AND EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY PROCESS, WHAT WE WILL BELIEVE WILL BE A LOT OF OPT OUTS AS STAFF SPOKE OF.
WE WANT THAT PROCESS TO BE INSTITUTIONALIZED AND SEAMLESS AND EFFICIENT ON MARCH 20, NOT AFTER WE BETA TESTED.
WE'RE GETTING AHEAD OF ALL OF THAT.
I'M REALLY GRATEFUL TO THE STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR WORK ON THAT.
THE SECOND PIECE THAT WE ARE REALLY VERY MUCH IN THE THROES OF RIGHT NOW, I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW.
WE ARE VERY DEEP IN OUR WORK ON OUR FIRST STRATEGIC PLAN AS A DEPARTMENT IN 16 YEARS.
THAT PLAN WILL BE FINALIZED MID MARCH.
WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE FINAL PRODUCT.
BUT THERE ARE SOME REALLY IMPORTANT TAKEAWAYS THAT ARE VERY MUCH ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC REALM, AND SO I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY OR SHARE WITH EVERYBODY WHAT THOSE ARE.
A TEAM AT MCKENZIE IS LEADING THE PLAN.
WE HAVE A LOCAL TEAM EMERGING FROM LOUISIANA, WHO'S THEIR PARTNERS ON IT, AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE BIG TAKEAWAYS THAT YOU'LL HEAR A LOT MORE ABOUT.
NUMBER ONE, IS THAT EFFECTIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN LOUISIANA, MOVING FORWARD IS GOING TO BE BUILT AROUND A WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH.
THAT IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WILL NO LONGER FIT SQUARELY IN THE LOUISIANA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ROLE.
IT WILL HAVE TO BECOME A FOCUS OF A PRIORITY OF FUNCTION OF A WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH, AND TO THE LEGISLATORS ON THIS PANEL WITH ME, THEY'VE LIVED IT VERY MUCH, AND I'M INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.
BUT FORMALIZING AND INSTITUTIONALIZING THAT IS GOING TO BE PART OF THIS PLAN.
SECOND PART OF THIS PLAN IS THAT LOUISIANA AND REALLY LED HAS TO FOCUS ON A TALENT ATTRACTION AND A RETENTION CAMPAIGN.
THE OUT MIGRATION PATTERN, WE ALL HEARD IT. WE ALL KNOW IT.
THE CHALLENGE IS VAST BECAUSE IT IS OUTWEIGHED DRAMATICALLY TO OUR WELL EDUCATED POPULATION, AND IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE FOR A STATE TO BE.
SO A TALENT RETENTION AND ATTRACTION CAMPAIGN HAS TO BE A FOCUS OF OUR WORK. EASE OF USE.
EVERY CONVERSATION WE HAVE AROUND THIS TABLE, THIS SPEAKS TO IT.
THE BRILLIANT PEOPLE AT MCKENZIE ARE TELLING US.
COMPANIES WANT TO GO WHERE THERE'S AN EASE OF USE.
I'VE USED THIS QUOTE, AND ALMOST EVERY SPEECH I'VE GIVEN, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL I SAY CAPITAL GOES, WHERE IT'S TREATED THE BEST.
EVERY POLICY WE DEVELOP HAS TO BE DEVELOPED AROUND A PHILOSOPHY THAT CAPITAL GOES, WHERE IT'S TREATED THE BEST.
AN EASE OF USE FOR OUR DEPARTMENT AND EASE OF USE FOR OUR INCENTIVES, AND EASE OF USE FOR LOUISIANA HAS TO BE A PRIORITY.
THEN LASTLY, HOW WE'RE GOING TO REALLY MEASURE THAT? WAGE GROWTH, BECAUSE HARD JOB COUNT THESE DAYS, IS NOT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN ANYMORE.
LOOKING AT MEANINGFUL WAGE GROWTH HAS TO BE A FUNDAMENTAL MEASURE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE HIGH LEVEL TAKEAWAYS THAT WILL COME OUT OF THE PLAN.
THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL, AS YOU CAN WELL IMAGINE.
THE GOOD FOLKS AT MCKENZIE DEFEND THEIR WAGES VERY WELL.
BUT WE WILL I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT, AND I'M AS EXCITED ABOUT THE OUTREACH THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE FACT
[01:20:03]
THAT THIS PLAN HAS COME FROM OUR REGIONS AND THIS PLAN HAS COME FROM OUR STAKEHOLDERS.THIS PLAN DID NOT COME FROM THE 11TH FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING.
LASTLY, IS ACTUALLY TWO MORE THINGS.
SESSION. WE DO HAVE SOME BILLS COMING THIS SESSION, BUT WHAT YOU CAN FULLY EXPECT IS THAT ALL THOSE BILLS ARE GOING TO REFERENCE THE PLAN I JUST SPOKE OF.
WE NEED THE TOOLS, WE NEED THE FLEXIBILITY, WE NEED THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THIS PLAN IS GOING TO TELL US WE NEED TO DO.
WE WILL IN THE NEXT 3-4 WEEKS BECOME MORE PUBLIC AND WHAT THOSE BILLS ARE GOING TO BE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ONE IS GOING TO BE AN INCENTIVE REPLACEMENT BILL FOR THE INCENTIVES WITH OUR VERY EFFECTIVE AND VERY IMPORTANT TAX REFORM SESSION THAT WE HAD IN NOVEMBER.
AS I TOLD THE LEGISLATURE MANY TIMES, I TRUST ME.
I'M TELLING YOU YOU CAN TAKE THESE TOOLS AWAY BECAUSE I'M GOING TO COME BACK WITH REALLY SMART TOOLS.
THOSE TOOLS ARE BEING INFORMED BY WHAT THIS PLAN SAYS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, A HIGH IMPACT JOBS PROGRAM THAT LEADS TO THAT WAGE GROWTH IN LOUISIANA IS GOING TO BE THE CORE OF THAT.
THEN LASTLY, I THINK I DID THIS AT THE LAST MEETING, SO I WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO IT.
OUR AB PIPELINE, THE INSIDE BASEBALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUFF, THE AB PIPELINE, OUR A AND B RATED PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE OUR WEEKLY ATTENTION AND WORK.
THAT PIPELINE HAS INCREASED 275% SINCE LAST TIME THIS YEAR.
OUR NUMBERS ARE WE HAVE 176 ACTIVE AB PIPELINE PROJECTS, WHICH RESENTS A POTENTIAL 2000 NEW JOBS, 20,000 RETAINED JOBS, AND 104 BILLION IN CAPX.
THAT'S OUR STATUS, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR BILLION IN CAPX.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT I WORK ON PROJECTS AROUND THE COUNTRY AND I TALK TO PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY ABOUT WHEN I TALK ABOUT NUMBERS LIKE THAT, THEY LOOK AT ME LIKE, HOW DO Y'ALL DO THAT? I JUST LOOK AT.
WE'RE GOOD. WE'RE JUST GOOD AT WHAT WE DO.
BUT THANK YOU, SECRETARY BOURGEOIS, AND THANK YOU FOR WHAT LED IS DOING, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, AND AS MUCH TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, TO THE COMPANIES WHO ARE CHOOSING TO INVEST HERE.
ALL OF THIS IS FOR NAUGHT IF YOU GUYS DON'T MAKE THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE TO INVEST IN LOUISIANA, AND FOR THAT, WE'RE GRATEFUL.
>> MR. MILLER. I HAVE A QUICK COMMENT.
IT ACTUALLY DOVETAILS RIGHT INTO THIS, ESPECIALLY THE WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT, AND THREE WEEKS AGO, FOUR WEEKS AGO, WHATEVER IT WAS, WE HAD THE SUPER BOWL HERE IN LOUISIANA AND WE DON'T WANT TO FORGET WHAT A SUPER SUCCESS THAT WAS, AND IT REALLY DOES REPRESENT THE WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT BEING INVOLVED BECAUSE EVERYONE FROM THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, STATE POLICE, LED, TOURISM, EVERYBODY WAS INVOLVED.
IF YOU LISTEN TO MULTIPLE BROADCAST OF THE SHOWS LEADING INTO THE SUPER BOWL AFTER THE SUPER BOWL, JUST ABOUT EVERY NFL EXPERT, EVERY COMMENTATOR TALKED ABOUT THAT THE SUPER BOWL SHOULD BE IN LOUISIANA EVERY YEAR.
OF COURSE, THEY CAN'T DO THAT. BUT THAT JUST EXEMPLIFIES HOW THIS NEW APPROACH TO PULLING EVERYONE TOGETHER TO PUT ON THE SUPER BOWL.
IF WE CAN DO IT THERE, WE'VE PROVEN THAT WE CAN DO IT AT ALL THESE OTHERS.
I MIGHT ADD THAT IF YOU WERE A PHILADELPHIA FAN, ONE OF OUR CITIZENS FROM TANGIVILLE PARISH, DEVANTE SMITH CAUGHT THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN TO END THAT GAME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'RE INCREDIBLY GRATEFUL TO PARISH GOVERNMENT FOR MAKING THAT HAPPEN.
ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER TODAY.
THANK YOU ALL. IT'S BEEN A GOOD DISCUSSION, AND WE APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.
I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
WE HAVE THAT MOTION MAYOR T. SECOND FOR MR. POLOZOLA ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.