CAUGHT: Opelousas Officials Misappropriate $5 Million?

For months, Opelousas residents were told that the Opelousas Downtown Development District (ODDD) was funding a stadium project. What no one said — not the District, not the City, not the Parish, not even the bond attorneys — was the one fact that puts the entire scheme in legal jeopardy. Unlawfully diverting funds to a project outside the district’s boundaries could constitute a $5 million misappropriation of public funds. State law even requires the attorney general to file a civil suit to recover such funds from the “responsible party.”

The Boundary They Chose to Ignore

The stadium is not in the Opelousas Downtown Development District. Not close, not arguably, not debatably. It’s outside the legislatively defined boundaries. And that single fact detonates the entire $8–10 million financing structure.

Louisiana law is explicit: a district can spend money only inside its boundaries. Not one inch beyond them. Not even for a “good idea.” Or an emergency. Not even for a feel-good stadium project.

Louisiana Revised Statute 33:2740.39 provides in part that the ODDD may:

…develop, activate, construct, exchange, acquire, improve, repair, operate, maintain, lease, mortgage, sell, and grant a security device affecting the movable and immovable property, servitudes, facilities, and works within the district…

Yet the Opelousas Downtown Development District:

• Hired consultants
• Paid for engineering
• Funded feasibility studies
• Had millions in bonded debt issued
• Has begun construction

…all for a project located outside the territory it legally governs. Every dollar spent outside the boundary is ultra vires — illegal, unauthorized, and void.

How Did No One Catch This?

That question leads straight to the heart of the problem. Either they didn’t know (which would be staggering incompetence), or they did know and chose to push forward anyway, counting on the public’s inattention to the statutory map.

Both explanations are damning.

The Opelousas Downtown Development District is a creature of the state, created by Act 318 of the 2005 Regular Session. It was the result of SB348 by then-State Senator Donald Cravins. The district’s objectives include:

Reversing the deterioration in property value in the district to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the city of Opelousas, and strengthening downtown as the city’s center of commercial, civic and cultural activity. (Not much different from those of Lafayette’s DDA, which has done little to stop deteriorating property values and has morphed into the fiefdom of Blanchardville.)

The district originally included the “historic district,” bordered north by the EW Railroad, south by Bertheaud Street, west by the NS Railroad, and east by Lombard Street. The boundaries were amended in 2017 by Act 326, legislation introduced by Senator Gerald Boudreaux (D 1/10) and Representative Dustin Miller (D 3/10). That change expanded the boundaries to their current limits — but not quite far enought to include the location of this new stadium project,

Taxing Itself into Prosperity

Opelousas is a case study in how economic development districts don’t work. After twenty years, the Opelousas Downtown Development District has not lifted downtown property values, reversed blight, or delivered the revitalization it was created to produce. But it has succeeded in one area: transferring public money into highly concentrated private benefits.

Recently, lawmakers created more dysfunction by granting the non-elected ODDD board the power to create additional economic development districts. In theory, this would allow the board to accomplish what the original district failed to achieve. In reality, it created something far more dangerous: a mechanism tailor-made for selective advantage.

Under the new language, the ODDD can draw new districts anywhere within the City of Opelousas, even entirely outside the boundaries of the original Downtown District. That means if “Citizen A” wants infrastructure near his property, the board could simply draw a district around his block and begin funneling public dollars into it. This is not hypothetical — it is exactly what the statute allows.

What the new language did not do was expand the boundaries of the original Downtown Development District. Those remain fixed in law. The ODDD itself cannot operate outside its original territory. The danger here is simple: a tool allegedly created to promote growth can easily be used to reward insiders. And each year, the legislature creates more of these districts — including the Greater St. Martinville Economic Development District and the Railroad Avenue Historic Cultural Economic District, created by Representative Marcus Bryant (D 2/10) last year.

The Bond Commission’s Role

In November 2023, by motion of Clay “Shakedown” Schexnayder (R 1/10), the Louisiana State Bond Commission approved ODDD’s request to borrow $5 million for ten years at 5.5% interest for Phase I of the stadium and track renovation at Donald Gardner Stadium in South City Park. There is just one problem: Donald Gardner Stadium lies entirely outside the statutory boundaries of the Opelousas Downtown Development District.

No approval from the Bond Commission — no matter how unanimous — can legalize an illegal purpose. The Commission may authorize debt issuance, but its approval cannot create statutory authority where none exists.

This logic isn’t new. It’s the same flawed argument former Lafayette Mayor-President Josh Guillory used when he claimed Bond Commission approval gave him authority to carry out drainage projects in another parish where he had no jurisdiction. Approval of financing is not approval of legality. The Bond Commission can authorize a bond; it cannot authorize an unlawful expenditure. If a district lacks statutory authority, no state agency can cure that defect.

The Commission may claim it relies on local governments to submit accurate applications. Fine — but then the question becomes: Who signed off on a bond application that misrepresented the project’s location? Or was the location ever scrutinized at all?

Millions in Liability, Zero Transparency

This is not a small procedural defect but a catastrophic abuse — one many would characterize as intentional.

• Taxpayers could challenge the bonds.
• Courts could enjoin the project.
• The Legislative Auditor could open an investigation.
• The Attorney General could issue an opinion or even file suit.
• Officials could face personal financial liability for knowingly approving unlawful expenditures.

But the illegal acts are already underway. This is precisely why citizens must pay attention to the law and the actions of state actors — because too many public officials won’t, or depend on the fact that you aren’t looking. The map never changed. The boundary was always clear. What changed was the willingness of local officials to ignore it.

The law is still the law — even in Opelousas, where lawlessness reigns supreme.

Misappropriation and Mandatory Recovery (R.S. 24:523)

What Opelousas officials also failed to mention is that spending money outside a district’s legal boundaries fits the statutory definition of misappropriation of public funds. That single word changes everything. Under R.S. 24:523, when an agency head has actual knowledge or even reasonable cause to believe public money has been misappropriated, he must immediately notify both the Legislative Auditor and the local District Attorney. Once misappropriation is discovered, the law is explicit:

“The attorney general… shall be authorized to recover misappropriated funds from the responsible party by civil suit.”
— La. R.S. 24:523(C)

It doesn’t stop there. The Attorney General must also seek restitution for every misappropriated dollar, the Legislative Auditor’s investigation costs, and the Attorney General’s own legal fees. In other words, if $5 million in Downtown Development District money was illegally spent outside the district, the responsible officials may personally owe the taxpayers $5 million plus the full cost of the investigation.

Unlike local politics, this statute has teeth. The recovery isn’t optional. It’s mandatory once misappropriation is found. Officials can ignore maps, statutes, boundaries, and common sense — but they cannot ignore the audit laws forever. Once the Legislative Auditor gets involved, the bill comes due.

###