Started By
Message

re: Judge rules against St. George incorporation

Posted on 6/1/22 at 11:20 am to
Posted by TigerAlumni2010
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2011
4375 posts
Posted on 6/1/22 at 11:20 am to
quote:

I read the judge's ruling. It seems as if though the biggest issue that is preventing the incorporation from happening is the $3 million deficit that the City of St. George would be running on day one due to the estimated cost of pension and other post-employment benefits that are paid to City-Parish Employees. Also, it appears that the incorporators did not meet with the EBR Sheriff to determine what monetary contribution the City of St. George would make to have the EBR Sheriff provide additional public safety services.

As a whole, it looks like that is the only real hold up with Judge Coady not ruling in favor of St. George, but legally it seems that the city was formed within the law, and is not racist.

It looks like there was an attempted bait and switch by incorporators trying to get people to vote for incorporation, promising no tax increases, but knowing that people who lived within the boundaries of the City of St. George would have their sales and/or property taxes increase to cover these budget shortfalls and money that would have to be raised via tax revenue to pay the EBR Sheriff for additional public safety services.

Pages 8-10 explain the judge's ruling more than anything else. The judge is pretty much saying that if you want the city, you're going to have to find a way to pay for it.


I would say it is difficult to estimate the UAL contribution considering the city refused to meet with organizers of St. George, and I don't exactly understand why there should be legacy costs at all considering St. George will still be paying their 3% into the parish coffers, which should cover parish employees. EBR is clearly going to be harmed by St. George, due to their own financial mismanagement, and the organizers should also go to the state legislature with this ruling to start the process to get a school district, which still is the end goal. It seems it is a question of financial numbers, but one thing is blatantly obvious, Baton Rouge can't balance their books without St. George, and St. George may or may not be able to, but it will be close.
This post was edited on 6/1/22 at 11:22 am
Posted by CrimeStoppers
Member since Apr 2017
62 posts
Posted on 6/1/22 at 11:49 am to
quote:

I don't exactly understand why there should be legacy costs at all considering St. George will still be paying their 3% into the parish coffers, which should cover parish employees.


The judgment states that St. George would be paying 2% to parish coffers for the legacy costs, or $48 million. Legacy costs are $51 million, which would leave St. George with a $3 million shortfall. You don't make up that $3 million without some tax increase.
Posted by CrimeStoppers
Member since Apr 2017
62 posts
Posted on 6/1/22 at 11:56 am to
quote:

It seems it is a question of financial numbers, but one thing is blatantly obvious, Baton Rouge can't balance their books without St. George, and St. George may or may not be able to, but it will be close.


Neither Baton Rouge or St. George would be able to balance their books without tax increases. Those increases would be much larger with Baton Rouge than St. George, but that's what happens when you function under the umbrella of a city-parish government.

If the incorporators would have negotiated with the city and proposed some revenue sharing agreement, whereby the city budget wouldn't have been cut by 45% with incorporation (but with a more modest cut of, maybe 20%), the incorporators may not be dealing with litigation.
This post was edited on 6/1/22 at 12:00 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram