Under threat of seeking another attorney general’s opinion on how to recoup $150,000 for dumpsters provided to residents at no charge to remove blighted property, the St. Charles Parish government agreed to bill residents who received the service.
Councilman Paul Hogan, who has pushed the issue, agreed to leave his resolution on the table at Monday’s council meeting when he learned the administration would attempt to recoup the funds. It would have been the fourth AG opinion sought on this matter.
“The parish administration is doing what they need to do to resolve the situation so I’m not moving forward with the AG opinion,” Hogan said.
Resolving the matter, however, will be tricky.
Chief Administrative Officer Buddy Boe said 143 certified letters will be in the mail by end of this week advising these residents to contact the parish Planning and Zoning Department to determine the amount owed, which could range from $450 to $14,500 depending on size of the project and vendors. The letter will also state the parish has no legal authority to force collection of the payment.
“We’re hoping residents feel the need to send back funds, however, we have no legal authority to get it back from them,” Boe said.
The question over whether the parish should be reimbursed for the use of the dumpsters with the blighted property had been decided by December 2013 when the attorney general ruled twice that the property owners should have to pay for the dumpster rentals.
The ruling was requested initially by four council members including Hogan, who took issue with the parish providing free dumpsters for 143 properties from November 2009 until early 2013 at a cost of $140,975. Hogan pursued the matter after nine formal requests to St. Pierre to resolve it with a solid plan went unanswered.
“There is no such thing as a blight elimination program that is just something they pulled out of thin air,” Hogan said, who maintained the program was about spending public dollars on private property.
According to a Nov. 26, 2013 AG opinion, the parish provided free delivery, use and pickup of the dumpsters to owners whose properties were deemed blighted, which equated to improperly spending public funds for work on private property.
The project was one of St. Pierre’s campaign promises aimed at cleaning up the area that resulted in 143 houses being demolished. At the time, he conceded to having “pushed the issue a little bit” because he wanted to make immediate impact to let people know he was serious about cleaning up the parish.
Boe said the program was aimed at lowering cost with removing blighted properties, streamlining the process, improving property value and improving the parish overall.
The program was aimed at reaching cooperative agreements with property owners to remove blighted property at $986 per location rather than condemn it and the parish remove it at $3,537, he said. St. Pierre estimated this approach saved the parish $365,000 by providing the dumpsters. Boe added, “the expenses associated with providing dumpsters in the past cannot be levied by SCP (St. Charles Parish) retroactively because a levy can only be placed through a court order – prior to work beginning – after normal procedures have been followed and within a window of 30 to 60 days.”
Hogan called the parish’s position weak and argued it was “a misuse of public funds.”
In a Sept. 20, 2013 Letter to the Editor, Hogan further clarified that, while Boe said the program was set up in such a way to avoid court costs, that there was no reason for the move. All legal costs associated with this ordinance are added to liens when placed on property removed under parish codes.Hogan further disputed the $365,000 saved was actually a saving for private property owners.
According to his letter, “Now the question is legally how far back can the Parish go or has to go back to bill the individuals who received the “free” dumpsters? Can the Parish go back at all? Or does the Parish have to go back no matter how far back in time it was and bill them all? And if there is a limit on how far back they can go, is the Parish President personally responsible to pay for the cost that was expended on those from whom he cannot seek repayment?”Boe said the AG opinions left final determination on the program’s legality to the parish’s legal department, which deemed it was appropriate.
However, he said Hogan pressed for an effort to recoup the funds.
When the program was initially questioned, St. Pierre also maintained the only wrongdoing was not seeking reimbursement for “hauling the stuff off.” The parish would have to absorb any additional fees to collect the funds, which he argued would be costly because it would require hiring a lawyer and a curator (minimum $900) to research property owners to let them know a lien would be placed on their property at up to $50 per lien, which are collected only 10 percent of the time.
By August of last year, the dispute remained over whether St. Pierre’s administration had to find a way to repay or rectify the $150,000 that the AG determined was owed from four years of providing free dumpsters for blighted properties. Although the administration had stated in the parish’s fiscal year 2013 audit that a corrective plan was in order, it did not provide details.
As to the additional cost of collecting the funds, Hogan maintained “that cost must be passed on to those from whom the parish will be seeking reimbursement. In the end, there should not be a single cent that the parish has to pay for which it will it will not be reimbursed relating to derelict homes.” He adds, “ …the taxpayers would not be out a single center and that is where the parish needs to be when the ‘free’ dumpster issue is said and done.”
Had Hogan pressed for the resolution for the AG opinion, it sought to “advise if the sending of bills by the Parish President to all the private individuals in an attempt to collect the money that improperly spent (irrespective of whether the funds are recovered or not) results in the elimination of the violation, and to advise on if there are any time limits in which the bills must be sent should the sending of bills be an acceptable means of resolving the violation.
It would have also asked the AG whether St. Pierre can be made to repay the money, as well as to outline the council’s legal options to prosecute to address the violation and whether any statute of limitations apply to this violation. It further seeks to clarify on “if there are any circumstances, such as having had good intentions or any other circumstances, which trumps the state Constitution with regards to the violation ad provide examples of such.”
Boe said Hogan’s resolution alludes to several issues and “it’s always been our position that the administration didn’t do this, such as giving away funds to residents. We’ve always believed in property values that send more money to the parish and improves safety.”
Be the first to comment