Council Meeting - Special Meeting

Hey, how you doing?

How are you?

Well, I mean, I'm just, well, it's painful.

I'm supposed to do chemo tomorrow, and I just got my blood results back, and my phone's been blowing up. The doctor's like, this number's not right, this number's not right, so I'm waiting for him to tell me what to do.

After a while, the cancer's not even a problem. It's all the incident. Anyway, thanks for asking.

It was great.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

I can feel it. I can feel it. Okay. Hey, how are you? Good. Okay.

What you got? Oh, I got you.

So we've got new stamps with new names on them. Hey, Mayor. Hey.

How you doing?

I'm doing well.

How are you? This is way too loud.

It's actually hot this time?

I don't know.

And I'm going to send an email to that lady. And I'll come to you when I confirm that audit letter and all that. She sent it to me, and I said, are we in a hurry? She said, I don't know, we've got a couple more days.

Which one?

I'll send her a response. Excuse me. I think it's okay. I actually hadn't reviewed the language about it. It's got to say contingent on capital. Yeah.

Okay.

Hey, I just got in trouble because you didn't tell me that we talked about this one. I forgot.

Okay.

i forgot all right i was going to see if he was going to acknowledge it i have four clients who sent it to me to review okay because i represent the um i represent the treatment facility i represent

It's a lifetime for me.

But don't hesitate to text me two or three days before and say, hey, bro. Every document that you sign that's binding has to go through the council. okay so we probably wouldn't even be able to do that no it's gonna have to be on september final action on october because the application would have to be submitted well you could sign it if you say contingent on council approval which is pending

We'll work around all that. There's ways. I've done this 30 years.

That's why I was asking you because I'm sure you didn't have to. I did. It's not working around it. It's just allowing it to happen without thinking about it.

Yeah, and without not getting points because it's just the first.

Right, right. There you go.

If you see me wearing crew glasses, I'll feel as well.

You can see over it.

one two three

Thank you. Thank you.

This is the second meeting for this item.

No, what I'm saying is the second meeting that we have in the board. Oh, yes. That was the first one.

No, I don't think so.

I got a bullhorn I should have brought her.

I bought for her.

We don't have the buttons for it.

Thank you very much, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean, so. I'm going to run away every time.

Let's bring this meeting to order, please.

All rise, please, for your invocation. Lord, we just come to you tonight and ask you for your guidance and your mercy over our decisions. Lord, may we have you in our vision and have you guiding our steps. And we will make the best decisions for the city to move forward, Lord, and the best decisions for the citizens of Salford. We ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, with the liberty and justice for all. Roll call.

Mr. LeDoux.

Here.

Mr. Norby. Here. Ms. Walters. Here. Mr. Bennion. Here.

Mr. Defoe.

Here. Due to public opinion, we're going to have a couple things just kind of straightened out tonight. The first three chairs over there in the first row, if it starts getting a little crowded or if we have meetings that's going to be a little crowded, we're going to leave those people who may have mobility issues. At the last meeting, Miss Cindy was forced to kind of go back and forth and back and forth. I called her to let her know that I felt bad about it. I'll let her tell you what happened after that. But I think that's a good idea for people who can't get around very well, crutches, wheelchairs, whatever the case may be, or just any type of mobility issue is going to go there.

And by public opinion, we're asking that everybody in here please take your hats off.

This is out of respect for the office and out of respect for the city council and the city of Sulphur. Thank you all, everybody. Appreciate it. First item today is public hearing on Ordinance Amending Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 216 of the Code of Ordinance of the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, and repeal any conflicting ordinances to establish council meeting dates, times, and locations of meetings. Ordinance 4826, myself. Do I have a motion?

I'll have a motion. I'll motion.

I have a motion.

I have a second.

I'll second.

Motion by Mr. LeDoux, second by Mr. Baden. I'm going to go ahead and read the rest of the ordinance. Ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 216 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, and repeal any conflicting ordinances. Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, the governing authority thereof, that they do hereby amend Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 1216 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, B, and it is hereby amended to read as follows to wit. Section 216, council meeting date, time, location, and agenda. A, the city council shall hold all meetings on the second Monday of each month at 5.30 p.m. excuse me, are for Monday, falls on a legal holiday, then the following business day of 5.30 p.m. If a meeting does not finish, the council may recess or continue it to a specific date and time. B, all meetings shall be held in the council chambers at 501 Willow Avenue. If the chairman determines at any time that the council chambers will be inadequate to handle expected attendance, the chairman may relocate the meeting to the West Calcasieu Community Center at 401 Arena Road, Sulphur, Louisiana. If available, the notice shall comply with applicable state law. Do we have any comments from the council? No comments? This of course was done at the request of Mr. Billy Laughlin in order for us to be able to move these meetings if they should get to a point where it should overload this location. Miss Windy, it says number one on meeting number three.

Okay.

Okay. The third item.

Okay.

being no comments just for the record members of the council the charter does require that this be designated by ordinance and so with all the potential changes in location I wanted to make sure and it turns out that historically we haven't probably been doing this right but I figured that doesn't make an exception or doesn't make it right to not move forward doing it right so that's why I've suggested that we get this adopted thank you

And please fill out the card at the end.

Sure. My name is Sheila Broussard. I have a quick question. I understand that according to, Billy has said, according to the charter that we have to have a location in the ordinance. Is that correct? That's correct. Would it be possible, if we're going to say that the chairman can... Is it necessary that we give an address where he will relocate to? Couldn't that just be an option just in case that one's not available, we could do WW Lewis or someplace?

Then we would go to a second option after that. Is that the way I understand that?

We talked about that. We didn't feel like we had a sure place to put in there. Also, I feel like we're already potentially stretching it because it says you shall designate the place. And I felt like it was reasonable in light of potential overcrowding to have, you know, a backup. So that was my recommendation to them.

So if we can't get into West Cal, what will happen then?

we can't get into west cal then we would either you know either delay the meeting or uh or or try to work or change the date maybe we could uh we could change the date of the meeting there's different things that we can do to get around and change venue possible change well and we could yeah we wouldn't want to go through all that we might just say start the meeting and say we're going to adjourn and pick the meeting back up on thursday at the west cal center

Okay. The question is, the charter says seven days advance notice for the regular meeting. So if the regular meeting is going to be postponed, then it falls under the state. We only have to do 24-hour notice of the next location if it's going to be a different day?

Correct. If you've already noticed that meeting and you start it and adjourn it, then you've satisfied that requirement.

Good. Thank you.

Yes, sir. If I may. Ms. Sheila, we talked about WW Lewis. We're in unprecedented times in Sulphur. We're in a temporary building. So we're trying to accommodate everybody we can. We want to be fair, transparent, have everybody there that wants to be here. Hopefully we don't need it. It's going to be a lot of trouble to get people there and set up, but we're trying to accommodate the people is the whole goal here. So that's all I wanted to put in. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Comments? Roll call vote, please.

Mr. LeDun? Yes. Mr. Gardner? Yes. Ms. Monceau? Yes. Mr. Bain? Yes. Mr. Capetto?

Yes. I have a motion to adjourn this meeting.

Motion to adjourn.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms. Monceau. Motion by...

We don't need a motion.

We'll be back in five minutes. Thank you.

If anybody wants to do anything.

Everybody good? All right. Bring this special meeting to order number two.

Invocation, please.

Mr. Chairman, we can go back to back when we get to the third one.

Okay. Thank you. Are you ready? Okay. Please have the invocation.

Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you to make these decisions for our city to be able to move forward. Please help us make the right decisions through everything that we do. In Jesus' name, amen. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. We have two items on this. Roll call, please.

Mr. LeDoux?

Here.

Mr. Darby? Here. Ms. Monza? Here. Mr. Bain? Here. Mr. Capetto?

Here. We have two resolutions I'll be going over. Resolution number one, approving the recommendation of Mayor Stoots for the appointment of Reed Ellender as interim director for information technology. Resolution 3326. Resolution number two, Resolution approving the recommendation of Mayor Stooge for the appointment of Lindsey Looch as, am I pronouncing that correctly? Yes. Thank you. As interim director of finance, resolution 3426, Mayor Stooge. Can you hear me?

So Reid Ellender has over 30 years of experience. Of course, you know the past IT director has retired, I think with 20 plus years experience. So I am going to appoint or have him serve interim director for the IT department at this time until we find someone long term.

Are we actively searching right now, Mayor?

We'll be, yes.

Okay.

This appointment will carry us through the first of the year.

Okay. My concern was with Mr. Ellinger and his retirement. Not to affect that was the only question I'd heard, so I wanted to just make sure we weren't putting him on a long-term time frame for that.

We've covered that base.

And I agree. Richard Reed's been here forever, so it's a great choice, I believe. And you as well, so congrats. Any other comments?

I'd just like to make a quick comment. As a council, we're not here to question whether the individual is a good employee or not. The council wants to determine whether the appointment meets the charter or whether the city's personnel procedures have been followed. Before we vote on either one of these resolutions, I would like to ask the administration and human resources to confirm for the record that both nominees have been reviewed for compliance with the applicable Home Rule Charter qualifications and the city's personnel policies and to have identified any personal requirements that remain outstanding or were waived. Mayor?

They're currently employed with the city, so that's my reason for appointing them.

Okay, but do they meet all the items within the charter? And do they meet all the requirements for each one of those positions?

As it stands, yes.

As it stands, yes. Yes. Because you're asking us to vote, and this is determined by the charter. So I just want to clarify that what we're voting for in a positive manner is in complete compliance.

Both candidates are qualified.

And there is complete compliance with the charter. Yes.

Both qualified. Thank you. All right.

Any other questions?

I do have one other question. I thought about it. So, Billy, I guess, does this normally come to the council before they appoint these people and then they're appointed?

Members of the council, I really don't think that for an interim appointment that charter really requires this. We wanted to do it in an abundance of caution to make sure that nobody felt like we were just making decisions without coming to you guys for approval. So I think that the both of these resolutions and approval by the council are being done by the mayor to make sure that y'all agree with the decisions he's made. And not really for compliance with the chart. That was my question. If the permanent appointments come up, or should he make either one of these guys permanent, you'll need to approve it again. And that is required. And this is more of an abundance of caution and out of respect to the council to make sure that we're doing the right thing and giving y'all the opportunity for input.

Okay, that's what I was curious.

I'd like to say I appreciate the interaction trying to get these guys in here to fill a void, being that we have an absence in the presence of having these people's position. And I think the interim appointments are all right. I'm in approval of both of them, actually.

Thank you all.

Do you have more comments from the council?

We have no comments from the audience.

Do we have to do them separately, Mr. DePette?

What?

We have to do them separately. Right.

We have a motion.

I'll motion.

Motion by Mr. Bailey. Second?

Second.

Second by me.

Is this on Reed-Ellender?

On Reed-Ellender, the first one.

Roll call vote.

Mr. Levine? Yes. Mr. Darby? Yes. Ms. Monceau? Yes. Mr. Bain? Yes. Mr. DiPietro?

Yes. Okay, we'll take up number two, resolution approving the recommendation of Mayor Stoots for the appointment of Lindsey DeLuz, interim director of finance. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Monceau. Roll call vote.

Mr. LeDoux? Yes. Mr. Garvey? Yes. Ms. Monso? Yes. Mr. Bain? Yes. Mr. DiPetto?

Yes. Okay, going on to number three. Call the order of the third part of our special meeting. Invocation. Okay, go ahead.

Dear Lord, as we gather here tonight, I ask that you take and lead each and every one of our hearts, dear Lord, and guide us in the right direction. Let us be open-minded, dear Lord, to the things that we're actually in search of, dear Lord. It's not of destruction, but it's for clarity and to shine a light on the things that we need to correct to better ourselves. God, I ask each and every one of us that sits up here on this board to have a clear conscience and a clear mind as we move forward through this entire process. In Jesus' name I pray.

Amen. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, this is a resolution requesting an opinion from the Attorney General related to potential violations of public bid law by the City of Sulphur, Louisiana. Resolution 3526, Josh Baden. Yeah, it's to you now.

So, I am asking for a resolution tonight to be voted upon requesting an opinion from the Attorney General related to potential violations of public bid law by the City of Sulphur, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Sulphur, Louisiana, the governing authority thereof, that they do hereby request the Attorney General's opinion related to the potential violations of public bid law by the City of Sulphur. This is requesting for Attorney General's opinion on suspected violations of public bid law concerning real estate lease and related improvements of 501 Willow Avenue, Sulphur, Louisiana, 70663. Dear Mrs. Merle, as a member of the Sulphur City Council, I respectfully request an opinion from your office regarding whether there are violations of the Louisiana public bid law in connection with the acquisition, lease, and related improvements of the building located at 501 Willow Avenue, Sulphur, Louisiana, 70663. The property, specifically, I seek guidance on whether the actions described below comply with the applicable public bid and procurement requirements, including the mandatory fair market analysis, bid solicitations, and competitive bid procedures. Statement of facts and concerns as I understand them. The property, which is currently under FEMA reimbursement funding, was acquired and leased under a two-year agreement with a monthly rent of $20,000.853. The lease was signed on a contingency basis before the purchase of the building closed. A private contractor, owner of 10X Services LLC, is alleged to be involved, and this contractor alleged has... family connections to the City Marshal brand endeavors by marriage. The City Marshal publicly indicated in council meeting minutes that he had worked for approximately four years to lock this building down to enable the project. There is no public record of a formal fair market analysis or an appraisal comparing the rent or the building's value against comparable properties. No documented comparables or written verification of fair market price have been disclosed by the city of Sulphur. The lease provides that all build-outs are to be funded by the City of Sulphur. It alleged that the build-out work estimated at $50,000 to $60,000 was performed by 10X Services, the building's owner, without a public bid or advertised competitive bidding process for the work. Related improvements project. A separate $325,000 improvements project was awarded to 10X Services LLC with no public bid advertisement or required by the City of Sulphur according to the public records. Public records indicate a request for $100,000 additional from the City Court Judge to be donated from the building fund towards this project. This donation raises concern about bid integrity, potential bid splitting, or malfeasance involving the judge, the city marshal, the city clerk, mayor, and the council members who approved the improved projects. The project was rezoned from residential to business nearly a year after the building purchase and nearly before the completion of internal finish work. with alleged inadequate or non-compliant inspections. During a council meeting, it was observed that a drinking fountain was not installed, potentially violating municipal and plumbing codes, yet inspectors allowed occupancy. These matters have been eroded public trust in city government and compliance with applicable procurement and permitting procedures. Requesting conclusions and questions for the Attorney General's opinion. Do the facts described raise material questions about compliance with Louisiana's public bid law and related procurement status in relation to A, the lease arrangement for the property and its rent, B, the lack of formal fair market analysis or appraisals, The decisions to fund perform building improvements without publicly advertised bids, any potential bid splitting or bid reading concerns, and the related conflicts of interest involving public officials. What procedural steps, if any, should the city undertake to cure possible noncompliance, including further bidding, rebid adjustments to the lease terms, or any requirement disclosures regarding related party interest? If deficiencies are found, What enforcement remedies or correction actions would the Attorney General's opinion recommend that will ensure compliances with the public bid law and related procurement requirements? Are there any additional factors under the federal FEMA guidelines or state building zoning or building code requirements that could affect the legality or the funding of the project? Supporting materials. Public meeting minutes and transcripts mentions four years of efforts by the city marshal to secure the building. Lease agreement documents including the contingency language and the stated monthly rent. Any available public records related to the build-out costs and payments to 10x services Public records indicating the $325,000 improvement project and the lack of advertised bids, zoning, rezoning, inspection, and occupancy records for the property. Any communication or records suggested a potential conflict of interest related party involvement. And a conclusion. I request the Attorney General's opinion to determine whether the city suffers actions concerning the property's acquisition, lease, and improvements were consistent with the Louisiana public bid law and related procurement requirements and to identify any corrective measures that may be warranted to restore compliance and public trust. I certify that I have reason to believe these matters may involve violations of public procurement and related laws and that a timely opinion from your office is sought to clarify applicable law and potential remedies. Other concerns are federal violations of FEMA guidelines and laws. Respectfully submitted, Joshua Baden.

Any comments from the City Council? I don't think we should only be getting an opinion from the Attorney General. I really think that there needs to be an investigation first. I think the information in this letter is incomplete and is one-sided opinion in order to influence the AG to make an opinion in his favor. And one question is, where is the intent? I would like to add that Mr. Brandon Dever is purely a tenant in this building.

I'm going to make a motion to challenge the chair.

I'm going to make a motion to challenge you on what you just said. Point of order.

Point of order. The challenge of chair goes across the point of order. Go ahead. I'm going to finish. You're incorrect in what you just said. I want to correct you because you said it's inaccuracy. I have a whole stack of proven documents right here if you'd like to go into them. We can do it now if you'd like.

We can do it when you want.

Are you done? Order, guys. Order, please. Order. Are you done? Order. Are you done? As long as you're done, it didn't mean at all.

Why don't we just let everybody speak?

Okay. And had no involvement in the purchasing process of this building. He wanted a safe and secure building for his team and the Sulphur City Court. Any mention of him in this investigation is no more than a grandstanding and part of a personal campaign against him. And I'd also like to point out a letter, an email, that you received as a part of your public request where it pointed out all of the different options that were given to us and how all of these options were proved to be wrong by different means of real estate investigation. The Goodwill building was one of them. The building on Napoleon Street where 10X Services is located across from the current DMV. Building warehouse owned by Roark. The building across from Missy's Grocery Store. The building and the property recently purchased on Roost Street. And it goes on and on and on.

Well that's funny that you have those records because they weren't privy to me whenever I did public records requests.

Okay. This lease was signed on a contingency basis for $20,000. 90% of that was paid by FEMA. This familiar The association that you put in there happens to be the fourth cousin of the marshal's wife, okay? The marshal and his team had been in at least four different buildings that were mold infested and people were falling through the floors. Of course he wanted a safe and secure building. You forgot to mention that, okay?

You can't do it by awarding illegal contracts.

One more outburst and you'll be removed. Okay. One more outburst and you'll be removed.

That's appropriate.

I'm sorry. So to challenge the chair, it doesn't matter whenever you're wrong and stating improper facts. You're stating improper stuff. And if you would like me to speak on that, This is an email from Jennifer Thorne and Brandon Devers. Do you remember the conversation that Babineau was going to fund a portion of the parking lot? I pulled the clear check, and we paid the total of $325,000. This contradicts completely what we've been saying to folks. Wow. Wow, $325,000 on a public bid. And whenever I asked for public records, folks, public records came back on letter six of my question, was any public bids put out on this building? No. So you can't go and exceed $250,000 on any capital improvements project without putting it up for public bid. It was never put up for public bid. It was disclosed by the city that they didn't put it up for public bid. And then we go to the city judge and we get $100,000 to take and reduce the amount of that to bring it below the public bid requirements, that's bid rigging, in order to award a job. And not one time has anyone decided that they wanted to ask me to look at any of these documents. You just want to take and avoid it. It's a violation of public bid law. And to go into it a little bit further, I'm not really sure that you're aware that we haven't received not one receipt of reimbursement on this particular building. Because you know why? Because the contract agreed that it had to be a movable building. And so no one's actually engaged into a contract agreement from FEMA to reimburse it. So it's kind of an interesting topic that maybe we need to really look at.

Members of the council, for the record, this matter has been submitted by the administration to the legislative auditor.

That was another question. Has it been to the DA's office as well?

The DA can't really do anything. He has to accept charges or reject charges after an investigation. But the legislative auditor, how long has it been there?

So I don't know the exact date, but it's already been sent over. So it was a three-pronged process. I sent everything over to the legislative auditor's office. The DA's office is only put on notice. until there are findings from that investigative authority. And by speaking with the two attorneys there, they have to comb through that. Then the auditor who was doing the auditing at that time had to be put on notice. And let me tell you, I'm going for another auditing session with another auditor. We will not, the city itself, will be using that same person. We're going to use state resources that is investigating it. Once they form an opinion, that will be given to Attorney General, however. But I'll be here to tell you, it's been submitted from a non-biased outlook weeks ago. Just because it's at the DA's office, they do not investigate things. Once the findings of what the legislative auditor finds, then it comes back here. So that's as far as what the administration side has done. At that time, possibly, I don't want to answer for it, but maybe does it go to the Attorney General? I don't know.

So you've got two investigations going. Do I understand that right? One. One. Two pockets.

Well, the DA's office has just put on notice that they can't accept or reject charges that don't exist. There's no conclusion.

So we've got one request for the DA. We've got your request for the DA. Let me finish. Your request for a legislative auditor. And then on September 14th, we've got another resolution or ordinance that's going to be a third investigation.

Is that correct? Let me just correct you. You said DA. I think you meant Attorney General. Attorney General.

Yeah. That's correct. So we've got three possible investigations that are going to be going on in less than a month on the same item. Is that correct? Technically.

If they all occur.

Are they from three different agencies?

The only one that I've submitted everything to has been the legislative auditor's office only.

Okay. So if we ask for an attorney general's opinion, then we can ask for an attorney general's opinion to slim down the amount of money that our taxpayers spend for an investigation to help move this thing forward and save ourselves the taxpayers' money. Also, I think we need to attach an ethics review to the Louisiana Ethics Board to assist them in that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If there's ethics violations, let's put it all on the table and move forward. And that will slim down our investigative process.

Yeah, from what I've been told, speaking with the legislative auditors, I would definitely let them go through with that process. And if there's another process, that's fine. And not have from an attorney standpoint of pulling that on a on a whole nother investigation. It's where it definitely needs to be at this point. I can tell you that by speaking with them. They are the first point of contact.

I was told that as well. And once it goes to them, it comes back to us. If we're going to do an investigation ourself, it's got to be sent to them at the end anyway. So if we go ahead and give it to them, it reduces the amount of taxpayers' money we're spending in legal fees to fight something that they're going to go through and review it.

Go ahead. You want to send it to the state to let them look at it, right?

Yeah. That's what you're saying? Yeah. So what if he comes back and says nothing's wrong? Then we're going to move forward. Are we?

We should, absolutely. That's all I want to know.

Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, but what took so long to get to this point is my question.

I don't know what took so long.

Do you think I could finish what I had to say? Please do. Can I? Thank you. You know, in my opinion, you know, because the execution of this agreement was approved by then City Attorney Mr. Cade Cole, then by Mr. Billy Loftin, and then by Patrick Vagandamo of the Legislator's Auditor's Office. I just want to make that very clear. And that's correct, is it not?

I don't know that I approved that. I was under the understanding that was a Cade Cole project, but if I did, I did.

So then, okay, we take you out of that. There's still a legislative audit. Right, I just don't remember being involved in it. I'm not saying that I did. Well, you know, I'm going to make this very brief. I'm not putting my name on this. I'm not putting my name on this at all. I'm not putting my name on a document that is seriously... making uh accusations against an elected official an elected official has just recently been uh re-up no uh so and i'm not gonna i'm not gonna be i'm not gonna be a part of this and i don't want any legal ramifications that would come out of it for me thank you society well danny only one of these statements

Has anything to do with him? There's a whole lot of other things that were said on here.

Well, I think what Mr. Danny says is for three years he got up and spoke in favor of everything that they did, so he's not going to get up there and go against it.

I don't think you're in a position to mention what I think.

You can have me removed. I'll be willing to walk out of here, but I'm going to say what I have to say. Danny DePetta, you are on a political move to attack Jacob Stoops. It's turned into a political stunt. Order.

Order. Order for sure. Let's talk about what we're on the items, guys, and let's quit throwing flames.

Can you do that? Danny, order.

Both of you, order.

Really. Order, guys. Stay on point to what we're talking about. This isn't vindictive to beat each other up.

I'm trying.

No, it's going to be done. That's enough, really. Let's talk about the item at hand. Any more comments?

I have a comment.

I got a question for the mayor and the mayor. So if we approve this, do you feel that we're putting a cart before the horse since you're already at the legislative auditor?

You want me to answer that? Well, go ahead and I may shed some light.

Yeah. I personally think I'm not opposed to what Mr. Bain's trying to do. Right. And I'm not saying that there would be anything wrong with having a multi-pronged attack. But I also agree with Mr. DePetta that An elected official's name with those accusations should not be in the letter. Maybe the answer is to amend the letter. We can all get along. I mean, this is not about... We want the result. We don't have to make a specific allegation against a specific person. If they're looking into it, they'll figure it out.

I just put the names of the people who's in the e-mails and all the transactions or the public records that was handed to me about the city.

Once again, I'm not... disagreeing with you about your purpose. I just agree with Mr. DePetta about the public official. That's it. That's all I got to say. The mayor may have something else.

So, real quick, you had referenced Patrick Bergadimo. He had not had all of this information, by the way, of which you're speaking of.

But he did approve it.

Okay. Upon speaking with the legislative auditor,

We'll wait to see what comes out of that. And I hope that after everything comes back that the people that have been at the forefront of this will wipe their hands of it so we can do business in the city of Sulphur and not have to carry on this type of thing over and over and over again.

Yeah, bid law procedure needs to be followed. I agree. 100%.

Ms. Windy?

Do you want to go?

Uh-huh.

I'm Bill LeBlanc, live at 710 Roberta Drive. I don't have much to say other than the fact that we cannot continue with this city, with the shame that's going on. We're the laughing stock of this area. You know, with you guys up there arguing like kids. I mean, I got kids that don't argue like y'all do. And, you know, follow the guidelines that's just set down by the charter and do whatever it takes to find out. If somebody made a mistake, if somebody did something intentionally, let's find out about it. But it doesn't have to be a war. You know, there's a war going on, and everybody feels it. That's why we're going to a bigger, you know, people like to see a fight. I know I've been involved in a lot of them, you know. And you've got to stop some of this stuff. Quit being childish about everything. And I'm talking to everybody. I mean, you know, we've got this deal with the mayor going on, you know, and his lady friend, you know. We've got Josh is mad at everybody, you know. You guys need to settle down. I mean, we had a council here at one time that got a lot done. And I never heard the kind of discussions that you guys going through. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Wendy.

Wendy Wingate, 256 Madison Crossing. I feel like that discussion was a perfect reason as to why the council should not be in charge of an investigation to this magnitude. Just a couple of points that were brought up just a second ago before I even go into my spill. You know, if you looked into the Goodwill building and the Roof Street building, then you would have seen in those meeting notes from a FOIA request that they did mention that they had to follow public bid law and how long it actually takes to get that process started. If you didn't see the minutes then you probably wouldn't see that. That was nothing but personal attacks and if we're here to save our friends then I'm not interested and I will call it out every single time. I feel like I hope uh everybody can keep the same energy about not accusing our elected officials of wrongdoing in a personal and public uh setting in the next couple of meetings that we have because clearly there's some ulterior motives and the colors were just shown pretty clear for me as to what what side people stand on are we here to actually call out problems and fix them are we here to protect our friends I feel like that conversation was proof that we all got the answer that we needed. So back to the actual problem, which was a clear violation of public bid law. Just to be very clear with everybody, this goes all the way back to 2024 when the city back in that time was actually just buying buildings like we were playing Monopoly, including a building that was over $300,000 for one of the previous council's brother, a building that we couldn't do anything for with. Like we still to this day don't have any purpose for that building. So we were just blowing money left and right. That's the only reason why I had my attention on this project in itself. They called a special meeting in 2024. They showed up to the special meeting with one agenda item that they had to amend because they didn't even bring the right dates on the contract. so we can't sit here and act like this just started yesterday when josh started making his videos this started years ago these are years of problems that have been covered up and y'all are scared of exposing them period with the public bid law there are some emails from jennifer thorne to the council they were first notified in august of 2024. at that time she said it was in the best interest of leasing this building instead of purchasing the building so we could get reimbursement for FEMA. Come to find out, we still don't have any information on if we've ever even received FEMA funding or not, which if you actually did do some investigation and FOIA requests, then you would have probably seen that an investigative journalist did request information regarding FEMA. Ms. Natalie Linden did a great job with her FOIA request. And Jennifer Thorne very clearly stated that none of this change of venue from the modular buildings, which were approved for 90% reimbursement, there was never any notification to FEMA that we moved buildings. As far as I can read, the only FEMA coverage is for modular buildings. So do we even know if this place is being funded by FEMA right now? I don't think there's a person in this building that can answer that question if we're truly getting 90% reimburse of that $20,000 a month rate. Maybe she can, but I am not about to put her on the spot in a meeting such this magnitude. But that is one of the biggest questions I would have in this entire thing is no one can actually say if we are getting any reimbursement for the monthly rate that we're paying. If we want to bring Cade Cole into it, then yeah, let's bring Cade Cole from the meeting back in 2024 when he clearly said that they upcharge essentially to make it easier for contractors to invest because it's so difficult to deal with FEMA. So if we really were truly investigating and not just believe in everything we're told right off the bat, then you would have found that information out as the chair of the council, who's quick to call inaccuracy of another council member.

You're past three minutes, Ms. Landry.

I would like you to vote and give me three more minutes, please, because I have a lot more to say.

So moved. So moved. Second.

I'll second it.

Vote.

Mr. LeDun?

Yes.

Mr. Darby? Yes. Ms. Monso? Yes. Mr. Baden? Yes. Mr. Capetto?

Yes.

So the council was notified in 2024 that there was movement. The council, to their defense at the time, did have quite a few problems with the building in itself. They were concerned about the cost that it was going to take in order to get this building up to par. And they were gas lit at that time and told lies. I'll get into that in just a second as I do have actual documents to support it. So the total cost, yes, was the $232,000. What they did was they said that they took away the $100,000 that was given by the city court. but what they don't tell you is is once a donation is made public to public fund it is public money so once they donated that money from the city court fund it becomes public funds that is our money so it doesn't matter how you split this project which if you pulled up the law it states pretty clear that under no circumstances Shall there be a division or separation of any public work project into smaller projects which division or separation would have the effect of avoiding a requirement that public work be advertised and let by contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder? Clearly that says under no circumstances can you split this project to get what you want out of it. Not only did they bring the $100,000 when we booked that, they still called me a liar. So then they started sending out emails that the contractor actually took on some of the costs. Nowhere in the contract that the council approved states that it was okay for the contractor to take on costs. But if we want to go ahead and say that that's not against the law, The same ordinance or the same resolution that Ms. Thorne put in the email to Mayor Stutes before he even was in the job, she flat out lied to him. Okay, so that's what she said. And in the law, it actually says, again, under no circumstances shall the agreement of a contractor to finance a public works project be used in any way to avoid the requirement that public work be advised and led by the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. So whether the contractor paid for it, whether the city court put money in for it, it doesn't matter how you split it or who you ask, that is still bid rigging. Period. So all he is asking is that, hey, if the AG finds a loophole in all of this, then fine. But you cannot sit here and gaslight the public into believing that the previous council and mayor followed the law. That is obvious if you actually pulled any record. If we wanna talk about total costs, then we have to talk about the additional costs outside of the parking lot where the $6,100 was paid for a canopy right outside on the southeast end that wasn't included in the project. Remember, we can't split at all under no circumstances. They also paid 800 extra dollars to 10X Services for a handicap stencil.

Ms. Wendy, we're past our time again.

And I want more time. I would like a vote.

I'll make a motion to do it. I'll second it.

How much time? Three?

Yeah. Three minutes.

So. Mr. LeDoux?

Yes. Mr. Darby? Yes. Ms. Monceau? Yes. Mr. Baden? Yes. Mr. DeBev?

Yes.

So on top of the $6,100 extra dollars and the $800 extra dollars, now we're going to say that the contractor spent $30,000 outside of what we agreed to in a contract. So now we're agreeing to violating a contract which would ultimately make it null and void. So that's stupid in itself. Not only did we do that, she is still essentially lying by saying the next excuse from Jennifer Thorne was that she told the mayor, let me read it so I don't screw it up, the property lease, which was approved by the council, stated that the parking lot was to be completed by the property owner. Did y'all read that in the contract? Because I didn't. What the contract actually says is that the tenant, that's not the contractor, the tenant is to pay for all of the exterior parking construction costs. That includes the parking lot, handicapped parking, and removal of poles, soil, rocks, and hard surfaces, architectural drawings, and permittings. That clearly does not say that the construction person is responsible for that. So again, if we did our research and didn't just flat out want to call people a liar because you don't want to have to agree that they are correct, you would have seen that information. The biggest problem that I have is that this has been created personal by such defensive strategy. When I started looking at all of this, the one person that we are talking about today, which is the marshal, honestly is going to not even be part of the process when it comes down to who's actually in charge here because he can't sign that and so you're sitting here defending him when he doesn't even need to be defended and on his end I don't know why his panties are in such a wad because he it's not going to be on him but we can't sit here and say that he wasn't involved he was very clearly involved we can't sit here and say that the council wasn't aware they knew what was going on and if they didn't they just didn't ask any questions So again, I had a feeling that this meeting was going to go this way and I'm very disappointed, but I'm not shocked one bit. I have a lot more to say, but the way that just went down, I'm going to hold off and I genuinely want to see how this plays out. And I just want to end with the simple fact that let's hold that same energy about accusing elected officials when we don't have anything to actually produce on that topic. Especially since there's an agenda item today that is very vague and no one has even bothered to even talk about it. It's a secret, but y'all let the entire city stir up drama instead of addressing the real problem. Here we are trying to address a real problem and you turn into this defensive personal mode and try and shut it down. If Jennifer Thorne talked to the legislative auditor's office, which she says in her email and several FOIA requests, including Natalie McClendon, she sent it to KPLC, Mr. John McCartney, who had a 45-minute video right before the election, she sent the same wrong lies to him.

Time. Thank you.

For the record, it was 10 minutes total. Ms. Sheila?

Sheila Broussard, I am happy that discussions take place in the chambers instead of outside of the chambers. Of course, it is disheartening that the chair would, and I made notes, it was the first time somebody got personal, that the chair would ascribe intent to somebody's request for information. Requests for information, investigations are what give us transparency. if, and I love what Billy had said, a multi-prong approach, a multi-prong approach cannot be a bad thing. I've dealt with the Attorney General's office. They gave me lots of information at one point and a few months later I asked for more information and it's been a year and they have not contacted me back in spite of me trying to get information from them continually. So for information to be requested from the Attorney General, from the Legislative Auditor, from the Ethics Board, it needs to be requested everywhere it can be requested. I do have a question for Mr. Baden. He had said and I think Wendy referred to it also.

You adjust me with the question and I'll pass on.

Okay. May I ask Mr. Baden a question? Mr. Chair.

That's also another way I can address the chair. Please.

I'm addressing you and asking you permission to ask Mr. Baden.

You can ask me the question. Go ahead.

You do understand it can be done.

I'm not holding you back.

I'm asking you a question first. You do understand it can be both ways and it's appropriate. You do know that, right? However you want to do it. Okay. I'm asking permission to address the district for representative. May I do that?

Sure.

Thank you. Mr. Baden, you said in a telephone, a very short conversation, so I didn't get to ask you on the phone, you had stated on the phone and here that it would be saving us money to give this request to the AG's office. Could you please expand on that? How would that work?

So if we're sending our information to the attorney general's office, they're a state paid agency. For them to review the documents that we're sending over to them to give us a finding, whether it's a prosecutable finding or just some advice how to correct it to where we don't make the same mistake again. And so that's what I've been asking for all along. But being that I've been an outside citizen and not an elected official, it was harder to get an attorney general's opinion on that issue. I was also hitting a block wall with other people interfering on state levels and trying to stop it, which is also a sad indictment. But if we go through the process, whether we go through three separate agencies or if we go through one, I mean, you know, where one might be completely slammed and dragging their feet, and we ask for one through the Ethics Board, we have one through the Attorney General's office, and one through the Louisiana Legislative Order. Each one of these offices do something totally different.

Mm-hmm.

And so I think it's a very important thing that we address all three. And then we're supposed to be holding a hearing, an investigative process, which is something that no city council in Sulphur has ever done before. So we're going to sit here and try to act like we're a judge and attorneys and by questioning people and doing what – look, I'm just asking for guidance.

Mm-hmm.

and head us in the right direction by people that are skilled and trained. I mean, and here's the whole question. The past administration constantly alleged of transparency. If there was complete transparency, look, then move forward with the doggone investigation. Let's get this over with. If you said there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to hide. Move forward with it. Get it over with. Get it behind us, and let's move forward. I'm not trying to attack one person, but let me tell you something. Whenever I bring up issues in every single email that I come across, certain people's names are mentioned in every single one of them. then that's an indication that those people are directly involved in that thing that needs to be looked at in an investigation. I don't care if I named them. I named who was in the paperwork that was given to me. So, I mean, I'm sure there's a whole lot that I missed in here that I'll probably go in and name. I probably wouldn't have enough paper to put them on. But I do believe it would drastically... I mean, Mr. Billy, what does an attorney charge an hour for?

I charge $450, except for public work.

Okay, so $450 an hour, we're looking at saving the city on something that could go on for months. So you figure how much money that would actually save the taxpayers. And not to mention, Mr. DiPetta would actually be allowed to get an attorney to represent Resolution 1 that he's passing for the investigation. He's asking for Mr. Stoots. And then I would also.

I'd like to make a point of clarification, if I could. Sure. The investigation is for the hiring and firing practices of the city. Never in that document, of any document that I've put out there, is Mayor Stoots or any of the other employees in the city council, in the city of Sulphur, excuse me, mentioned. Never. That's what you've been doing and that's what other people have been doing, and I'd like to make this perfectly clear. We're investigating the process. We're not investigating the people. Okay, and let's make this perfectly clear.

I am.

I'm clear on that. If you're bringing up individuals' names again, then that's a problem. If you're pointing fingers at individuals, like Mr. Billy said, that's a problem.

Okay, well, I guess I'm not pointing fingers. I'm stating a fact that I received in your email, and you said, please give me all investigative documents involving Jacob Stoots. So that clarifies that. And so being we got that on the table, we verify that who he was talking about.

Can we get some order and go back to the point of what we're talking about and not the bitter and once again, guys, we're back off point.

I want to correct it. Like he said that he wasn't talking about one specific person, but his emails and correspondence to me iterate something completely different.

I don't believe that.

To bring it back to the topic,

If someone's name is brought up in an investigation, it's not going to sway the Attorney General one way or the other. If your name is in a document and your name is brought up, that's not going to sway the Attorney General at all. the mayor's name or Deaver's name, whoever's name is an investigation, I don't think that's important. I am disheartened that any member of this council would say before the discussions took place, before the council has spoken about it, before the citizens have had a chance to speak, that you would say, I'm not going to put my name on this. That's a sad thing that your mind is made up before you've heard from people, from people who've read it certainly more than I have, read the investigative papers more than I have. I don't think for anybody to come in here with their mind made up on something as detailed as this is a shame. I do have a quick question for the mayor. You had said that you sent everything to the Attorney General. Was it everything that the representative from District 4 had sent you in that? Correction, was she a legislative auditor? Thank you very much. Have you sent the legislative auditor everything that the representative from District 4 gave you in regards to the Willow Street building in Deaver?

So the total lease agreement, total contract price, is what they are looking at because that scope of work goes by that. No other information has been submitted as far as from Mr. Baden.

So it is not redundant for him to put forth something because much of that is not in yours to the legislative auditor. Is that correct? Is that a fair statement?

If he had other information that is beyond the scope of the lease agreement and the total scope of work is what they're interested in, because it's new construction, they wanted a final amount. It doesn't matter if I paid for it and you paid for it. It goes by the total scope of work. Being that it was new construction with public funds, I gave them that and the lease agreement. No other information was given. by me to them only what they've asked for. They wrote back to me what they needed to go with that scope of work in an investigation. Now, if there's other information that I need to include in that, I'd be more than happy to pass that along. However, they need to come through. But they wanted to know procurement process and total scope of the work, job related. They're only looking at the process legally of which you would have had to do with those two things.

So it would be very beneficial to have what you are getting from the state legislative auditor. Do we need to take a vote for me to be able to continue to speak?

Do I hear a motion? So moved.

Second.

Who's seconded?

I will.

Mr. LeDoux? Yes. Mr. Darby? Yes. Ms. Monso? Yes. Mr. Baden? Yes. Mr. DePette?

Yes. Thank you. So it's not a redundant request, but even if it were, if everyone in this room sent a letter to the Attorney General stating their concerns on this particular matter it would lend more credence to the fact that an investigation needs to take place. I don't think we can have too many requests on anything. I think they're smart enough to sort out the duplication and to sort through what information that they need from every person that submits information. Let's see here. I want to go to a couple of things that Ms. Wingate brought up because I was listening to Ben Shapiro today speaking on the PBD Black Broadcast, a podcast that deals with politics and much, much more. But Ben Shapiro said it doesn't – make a difference to him, and I don't think it should to me, and I don't think it should to anyone in this room. If someone has done something that is illegal, immoral, unethical, has harmed this city, it should not matter, your friends. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Sheila. Anybody else?

Ms. Amy?

Amy Felice, 2329 Augustine. And Mr. Chair, I don't know if this is the last public comment period, or is there one after this? This is it? OK. So just a couple of questions based on some observations. And I did not intend to speak, so I may fumble on my thoughts a little bit. But my first question, based on an observation, is do we have a deputy clerk? Ms. Blanchard is phenomenal. And I don't know if she ever gets any time off. So I don't know what happens if she, you know, lets her heart get sick or something. So that's one question that I have. And another question that I have, is there a way that The chair positions can be changed. I know that it was voted on.

Every year.

Every year? OK. I've noticed how Mr. Darby does a good job trying to keep order and stay on task. And I hear some phrases in other municipalities, like point of order. Well, anyway, that's all. Request for information, yes. You can't speak to motives, things like that. So that's all.

Thank you. Mike Granger, 521 Oakland Drive, Sulphur. A couple things. I really think that we shouldn't be using anyone's name, whether it be the finance director, the past mayor, whoever, in an investigation and make accusations. You can say the position, but I don't think any of us needs to get up here. I think it's why it's become so personal that we're using names. So I don't think it's fair to those individuals, whoever it's called and whatever individual out there, about whatever they did or didn't do before we know, because once you, now that you said the name, you can't go back and retract what you said. The mouth is a very powerful thing. Once you say something, it's done. I want to reiterate on bills, too. This is not just, there's people calling from California, they're calling from all over the country about the city of Sulphur, what's going on right now. I've been there all my life. So we got to do something to quit. I'm talking about radio stations all over. Okay. So another thing, so I want to address the money issue. Is the ethics board being paid? Are they a state agency? Are they being paid? What about the Attorney General? Are they being paid? And then the legislative order is being paid. There's no way you can save money if you've got three different agencies. Go ahead. By the state, sir.

They get paid by the state.

That's what I'm saying.

Is it our taxes? Okay, so you've got three investigations going on. There's no way you can save the public any kind of funds by having three investigations.

State funds. It's not state funds.

Please let him talk.

But correct him then.

Please let him talk. I think we ought to give the investigation to you. So anyway, I'm getting distracted. I apologize. Excuse me. Can we strike that comment? I'm not saying names. Strike that comment. So my point being, where are the funds coming from? State? The city? There's no way you can tell me we're saving money by getting three. different groups involved. So let the mayor, let them do that. If they come back with a finding, then we'd send it to the Attorney General. Attorney General comes back with a finding, then we send it to the Essex Board. I think it's a little overkill if we're going three different.

But it would be going the same direction by saying that. You'd still be doing the same thing.

Yeah, so I mean, you already got one going, so I just don't see where it's saving us any money.

There are three totally separate agencies. Thank you.

Not saving us any money. Is it saving us any money? Well, no. There's no discussion.

There's no discussion on that. Ms. Lena?

I didn't really come here to speak tonight, but my name is Lena McArthur. I live at 5514 Clark Drive, software 70665. My question is, where is the integrity of this city? I've lived here for 65 years and never seen a hornet's nest to this. Not fussing at any of y'all, but my question is, Mayor Stoots has an investigation going on. Why another one? At the end of the day, doesn't the DA get to make the decision whether they accept charges or reject charges, if there was something done wrong. As I've said here tonight, they keep saying there is something, but you've got to get the answer to get to the DA to find out what really happened. And I'm in agreement. Don't call people's name out. We all have families. I've been one of the people that's been in the videos. I really don't appreciate it. and I don't appreciate the attack we have on our citizens this afternoon.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a motion? So moved.

Second for the vote?

Second.

Second by Ms. Danielle. Roll call vote.

Mr. Lejeune? Yes. Mr. Darby? Yes. Ms. Monson? Yes. Mr. Baden? Yes. Mr. Capetta?

No. Motion to adjourn.

Mr. Donahue?

No motion. Meeting's adjourned.

What's the date today?

Let's keep going. Thank you. okay um Oh, there we go. I don't think so. How's it going? Good, how you doing? I'm good. Oh, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

September 1st

Yes ma'am, absolutely. Yes ma'am, no problem. Appreciate it. Tomorrow, lady, you'll be careful. Have fun. Enjoy your time. That is appropriate. You heard me call him. This is your core representative. Thank you.

Yeah.

I mean, it's good. It's still a problem. We'll see. Bye. What's that?

I'm going vacationable.

How do we turn off? I think we're going vacationable.

Carlene, how do we turn off that?

Oh. Hey. Oh, yeah.