City of Gonzales, parish officials at odds over Tax Sharing in annexed property

President Clint Cointment is convinced Ascension Parish is getting a bum deal, unfairly denied its fair share of Sales & Use Tax revenue generated within five distinct areas annexed by two municipalities going back to 1988.  Four of the subject annexations were by the City of Gonzales, one by the City of Donaldsonville, and Cointment wants the Parish Council to alter the terms in favor of Ascension.  Currently, the municipal taxing authorities share the take 50/50 with the parish’s chief executive seeking a 75/25 split in the parish’s favor.

The argument…

Ascension has to fund certain items (see above) outside and inside municipal boundaries.  A vote of the Parish Council is scheduled for Thursday in Donaldsonville.

Cointment’s counterpart in Gonzales, Mayor Barney Arceneaux adamantly opposes the adjustment along with (we suspect) all five city council members (though we’ve only spoken to a few).  While none of them have a vote in two days, even if they cross the Sunshine Bridge to Donaldsonville’s Historic Courthouse, Gonzales’ elected officialdom is not without legal recourse.  Talk of a lawsuit had already begun on Irma Blvd (City Hall) on Monday afternoon after Thursday’s Parish Council agenda was published, including:

“Reading of Ordinance – to amend ordinance Sec.9-5 Sharing of sales tax revenue between the parish and municipalities generated by annexed properties from 50/50 split with the Parish and the Municipalities to a 75(Parish)/25 (Municipalities) split (Chairman Chase Melancon, Vice Chairman Blaine Petite, Councilman Michael Mason, Councilman Todd Varnado, Councilwoman Pam Alonso, Parish President Clint Cointment)

Coincidentally(?), the January 18 Ordinance Introduction specified a particular municipality:

Introduction of Ordinance – to amend ordinance Sec.9-5 Sharing of sales tax revenue between the parish and municipalities generated by annexed properties from 50/50 split with the Parish and the City of Gonzales to a 75(Parish)/25 (City) split

Simple mistake or admission that Gonzales is the focus of parish rapacity, officials in the Jambalaya Capital of the World certainly took note.

https://pelicanpostonline.com/rift-brewing-between-parish-and-city-of-gonzales-over-tax-sharing-ordinance/

The big ticket item?  By far the largest generator of sales tax, maybe in the entire parish, is Gonzales’ Walmart, the subject of an agreement entered into 35 years ago.  The terms of that agreement (and we await its production pursuant to records requests from Ascension Parish and the City of Gonzales) contractually establish that 50/50 split according to the city.

A deal is, after all, a deal.  Or is it?

Section 9-5 of Ascension’s Code Code of Ordinances currently reads:

The sales tax enhancement plan attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A be implemented and that the office of the parish president is hereby authorized to enter into such agreements as contemplated by this plan.

(1) In all cases where developed properties were annexed in the past or are annexed in the future, fifty (50) percent of the net proceeds shall be collected and retained by the districts. The net sales tax revenues shall be those received by the district after accounting for all expenses of collection.

(2) Future taxes not affected. This plan is intended to apply only to existing sales taxes. Additional sales taxes, which may be levied in the future by any entity with such authority, shall be entirely payable to the levying authority, unless provided for in any sales tax enhancement plan entered into between the districts and municipality

Should the Council approve it on Thursday, it would be the third revision since initial codification in 2009.  The proposed revision:

(1) In all cases where developed properties were annexed in the past or are annexed in the future, seventy-five (75) percent of the net proceeds shall be collected and distributed to the Parish and twenty-five (25) percent of the net proceeds shall be collected and retained by the districts. The net sales tax revenues shall be those received by the district after accounting for all expenses of collection (new verbiage underlined, emphasis added).

Would council approval override the terms of an arms’ length agreement between the parish and the municipality?  Arguably an Ex Post Facto (having retroactive effect or force) application of laws, generally frowned upon by the courts, would Gonzales have a viable claim?

How much money does the City of Gonzales stand to lose; can it absorb the hit without cutting services valued by residents?

On January 18 CAO Scot Byrd intimated that the city might be forced to apply its full percentage of collection regardless of Ascension’s decision.

“If this ordinance (amendment) is adopted, all citizens who live in annexed areas without an intergovernmental agreement for sales tax sharing will pay 11.5% sales tax,” Byrd claimed.  “That’s what you’re being asked to approve.”

Unless the Parish Council defies the administration on Thursday, already simmering frustration at City Hall seems near the boiling point.  Gonzales’ overtures to strike a deal with regard to a dozen more annexations, these resulting in residential developments in Gonzales that yield sales tax via online sales, were ignored by Cointment.  Both sides seem to have dug in without any negotiation (or communication for that matter).

On January 5, 2022 Byrd corresponded with President Cointment and Sheriff Bobby Webre, seeking Tax Sharing agreements on those residential annexations dating back to 1988 with the most recent being in 2021.  (NOTE:  Every annexed parcel of property enters the city zoned R-15, Gonzales’ most restrictive zoning category).

According to the city CAO, no response was ever received from Ascension Parish Government.

Mayor Arceneaux and certain city council members worked the phones yesterday, trying to persuade various parish council members to reject President Cointment’s ordinance revision.

 

Comments

comments