Louisiana Supreme Court: St. George can incorporate into new city, taxes can support services
BATON ROUGE, La. (BRPROUD) — A Louisiana Supreme Court opinion released on Friday, April 26, will allow the city of St. George to incorporate.
They found that legal error led to lower courts denying the incorporation, and the lower court’s judgment was reversed. The city’s incorporators and electors won the judgment requested.
The justices said the record doesn’t support the supposition that the city can’t support its necessary services. They also challenged the idea that a city-parish council member could contest the incorporation without living in St. George.
J. Andrew Murrell, the attorney who represented the incorporators, issued a statement:
“Today is a great day not only for the citizens of St. George but for East Baton Rouge Parish as well. This is the culmination of citizens exercising their constitutional rights. We voted and we won.
“Now we begin the process of delivering on our promises of a better city. We welcome both our friends and foes to the table to create St. George.”
“To our volunteers…you are amazing. Your dedication, hard work, and perseverance created the City of St. George. Without you, this would have failed. Because of you, we are now afforded the opportunity to build a modern city from scratch.”
Three dissents also were noted by justices. Chief Justice John Weimer and Justice Scott J. Crichton outlined their stances in written dissents, and Justice Piper D. Griffin agreed with their reasons.
Lawyer for new city of St. George talks about Supreme Court decision OKing incorporation
How did the court make the decision?
The court heard arguments in January on the matter.
The justices found that Metropolitan Councilman LaMont Cole, who helped issue the initial legal challenge, doesn’t reside in St. George or own property there.
“Consequently, he has no real or actual interest in challenging the sufficiency of the petition. Because no one from within the incorporated area objected to it, the court of appeal erred in considering the sufficiency of the petition,” the justices wrote.
The court said a challenge to the incorporation was the new city’s timely ability to provide services, which will be split between parish-provided and non-parish-provided. The justices said the parish-provided services wouldn’t be affected by incorporating.
The other services, the justices wrote, are determined by tax income, and those taxes must be approved by voters. They pointed to the incorporation of the city of Central as an example of a community where that happened.
Justices said it would take about $51 million a year to operate the city, which currently only has a $48 million expected tax revenue, pending voter approval. They said the estimated $3 million annual deficit swayed decisions.
However, a change to the way pension debt is calculated would reduce the new city’s liability from an estimated $8.9 million a year to $5.1 million. That $3.8 million reduction would put potential operating expenses in the black.
Another $4 million in potential costs also were debated but determined to be a potential, supplemental cost.
The court said the town has unique characteristics, a fire department and a thriving business community.
“The area also desires its own school district, which is largely the impetus of the incorporation effort,” they wrote.
They also specified that Baton Rouge itself did not attempt to contest the incorporation.
And the challenges brought in the suit, according to the justices, only showed a loss of tax revenue.
“On the other hand, if St. George citizens receive services for the taxes they pay, incorporation brings cost-savings to Baton Rouge, which will no longer be required to provide those services. … Without evidence of the full economic impact of incorporation, denying incorporation because of an unreasonable economic impact on Baton Rouge is an error,” the opinion reads.
The justices said that evidence that St. George would negatively affect the city-parish were incomplete or shown to have no effect because of the financial offset of no longer providing some services.
History of the case
The area has been working to become a city since 2018. Residents of the community agreed and voted on the incorporation. Mayor-President Sharon Weston-Broome did not approve the change.
In 2019, she filed a lawsuit against the incorporation of the city.
In 2022, former 22nd Judicial District Judge Martin Coady denied the creation of a new city. He noted an estimated $48 million cost to taxpayers and said the plan for public services isn’t adequate to meet residents’ needs.
In 2023, a Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals ruling again said the group can’t become a city, stating the plan to incorporate doesn’t meet state law requirements.
Why did some justices disagree?
Weimer’s dissent
“The decision in this case achieves a result masquerading as an opinion,” Weimer wrote in his dissent.
He said state law requires a complete listing of services that a town will provide, and the petition is “legally deficient” because it doesn’t include a plan to support residents.
The plan was not part of the petition and he noted phrasing that “all services will be provided subject to the availability of funds” means those services might not be provided.
“An escape clause allowing the municipality to avoid altogether its promise to provide services is not the same as an affirmative plan to provide those services,” Weimer wrote.
He said the majority “strained” to determine that Cole didn’t have the right to challenge the incorporation.
He would deny incorporation.
“Ignoring the law to achieve a result results in the law losing all efficacy and meaning. Although a desired result may be achieved by ignoring the law, the cost to the system of justice is too great,” Weimer wrote.
Crichton’s dissent
Crichton also determined that the majority made errors both in the merits of the petition and in saying Cole didn’t have the legal standing to argue against incorporation.
He agreed with a lower court finding that incorporation was unreasonable. He does not believe that court made a legal error.
He holds that a court of appeal can’t reverse a ruling if the findings are reasonable.
Crichton argued that the lower court’s findings that the new city might be operating at a deficit from the start, that it likely could not provide services in a timely manner, and Baton Rouge could be negatively affected were reasonable to the lower court even if the other justices would make a different ruling themselves.
Latest News
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to BRProud.com.
Solve the daily Crossword
