Opelousas ODDD Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to get a straight answer out of the Opelousas Downtown Development District (ODDD). When we asked how much money the district had awarded to twelve private businesses and organizations, its attorney informed us that no responsive records existed.

That’s interesting, because the district had already sent the recipients letters on July 13 telling them exactly how much money they were getting. Our records request wasn’t submitted until August 4. Apparently, the documents existed before we asked for them. They just didn’t exist when we asked for them.

We first raised questions about ODDD’s $100,000 Building Improvement Grant program in August. The district had announced 12 recipients, but the announcement didn’t specify how much each recipient would receive, exactly where the projects were located, or what improvements were being funded. Those seemed like reasonable questions. After all, it’s public money.

Unfortunately, getting the answers proved considerably more complicated than asking the questions.

The Records That Didn’t Exist

On September 2, the district’s attorney responded to our request for information about the awards. According to his letter, ODDD had no responsive documents showing the amounts awarded because the program reimburses recipients after they complete their improvements.

In other words, no checks had been written. That’s fine, except we hadn’t asked whether the checks had cleared. We asked how much money had been awarded. And ODDD already knew the answer. The district’s own July 13 Letters of Commitment specified the amounts promised to individual recipients. One committed up to $10,000 for improvements at 106 East Bloch Street. The district’s published guidelines even required these letters.

So we asked again. On September 18, the district produced the award letters and a scoring workbook. The workbook had originally been created July 7, although the copy provided to us had been saved again on September 15.

We don’t know why the attorney initially told us no responsive documents existed. Perhaps he misunderstood the question. Perhaps the district hadn’t provided him with everything. Whatever the explanation, the documents were eventually produced. And that’s when things became even more interesting.

Twenty-Five, Twenty-Two, Seventeen — HIKE!

At its June 26 meeting, the ODDD board was informed that twenty-five applications had been received for the Building Improvement Grant program. When we requested those applications, the district initially produced twenty-two. Then came the scoring sheet. It contained only seventeen.

Of those seventeen, twelve received awards totaling $100,000. The other five received nothing. So let’s review. Twenty-five applications were reported to the board. Twenty-two were produced in response to our records request. Seventeen appeared on the scoring sheet. And twelve received awards.

What happened to the other eight applications? There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for every one of them. But shouldn’t there be some record of how twenty-five applications became seventeen? After all, this was supposedly a competitive grant program. If applicants were eliminated before scoring, who eliminated them? What criteria were used? And where is the record of those decisions?

These aren’t difficult questions — at least, they shouldn’t be. They’re the sorts of things one might expect a government agency to document before committing $100,000 in public money.

Present, Absent, or Both

The meeting minutes we reviewed introduce another interesting wrinkle. According to the July 31 minutes, board members Stephen Daste and Pat Fontenot were absent. Nevertheless, Daste somehow managed to second a motion and present the financial report. Fontenot, who was also listed as absent, moved to approve that report. It seems the ODDD has found a way for board members to participate in meetings without attending!

Well, maybe they arrived late. It could be that the minutes are simply wrong. Unfortunately, the official record doesn’t explain if one of these is the case, or if it’s something else entirely.

What’s more consequential is what those minutes say about the grants themselves. The board received an update that 11 applications were fully funded and 1 was partially funded. The minutes then introduce the recipients with the words, “The awardees are as follows:”

And that’s where the list ends. Seriously. No names were included after the document announced, “and the winners are…”

The district’s attorney subsequently acknowledged the omission and directed us to the press release for the recipients’ names. Now, the board did approve a budget containing $100,000 for business grants. The June 26 minutes establish that much. But approving a budget and approving individual recipients are two very different things.

The award letters were dated July 13. The board didn’t receive its recorded update until July 31. And the minutes contain no vote approving the twelve individual awards. Perhaps the review committee had authority to make those commitments without further board approval. That’s certainly possible. But where is the document granting that authority? We haven’t been provided with it.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul?

This brings us to the question that started our investigation of ODDD in the first place. Whose money is being spent, and where is it going? Opelousas has two different development districts — but the same agency controls both. The larger Opelousas Downtown Development District (the ODDD) encompasses much of downtown and several commercial corridors. Nested within it is a smaller, separately created Economic Development District No. 1.

That smaller district consists of specifically identified commercial properties. Those businesses pay an additional one-percent sales tax, which finances the ODDD’s activities. The 2018 tax ordinance authorizes the funds to support economic development projects “in or benefitting” the taxing district. Section 9 goes further, dedicating the tax increment to economic development “in and directly benefitting properties in the district.”

Now consider the $100,000 grant program. Its eligibility rules require applicants to own or occupy commercial property within the larger ODDD. They do not require those properties to be inside the smaller district where the tax is collected. And the awards are going to businesses and organizations whose identified properties do not appear among the parcels listed in the taxing district’s published ordinances. Where is the evidence that these projects directly benefit the properties paying the additional tax?

That’s what we wanted to know. Instead, the district’s attorney informed us that ODDD maintains only a General Fund, with the $100,000 allocated to a line item called “Grant – Business.” Calling tax revenue “General Fund” doesn’t change where it came from. And placing it in a general account doesn’t, by itself, eliminate restrictions imposed when the tax was levied.

The businesses paying that additional one percent are Peter. The businesses receiving the grants are Paul. And ODDD has yet to explain how robbing Peter to pay Paul directly benefits Peter.

Where’s the Accountability?

There may be perfectly reasonable explanations for everything we’ve uncovered. Perhaps the missing applications were screened out before scoring. Perhaps the absent board members arrived late. Maybe the committee had authority to commit the money without another board vote. Perhaps the attorney simply misunderstood our request for the award amounts. And maybe ODDD can demonstrate how improvements to these twelve properties directly benefit the businesses paying its additional sales tax.

We’d be delighted to see the documentation. But after two records productions, several exchanges with the district’s attorney, and months of examining its taxing authority, we’re still asking some remarkably basic questions. Who approved these awards? What happened to the other applications? And how do the expenditures satisfy the restrictions attached to the money?

These aren’t unreasonable demands. They’re the ordinary questions that should accompany any government program spending $100,000. The district has already decided who gets the money. It shouldn’t take an investigation to find out why.

###