Morgan City Redevelopment Agency approves amended incentive agreement for Comfort Inn and Suites

The Morgan City Redevelopment Agency voted on Dec. 10, 2024 to approve Resolution R2445, which amends an economic development incentive agreement with Revaba Morgan LLC, doing business as Comfort Inn and Suites.

The change approved by the agency removes a paragraph that would have reduced annual payments if the RDA did not receive sufficient tax increment revenue in a given year. Speaker 5 (Ty), who led the presentation, said the developer had requested two modifications: pushing a date to January and deleting the shortfall clause. “We just struck that whole paragraph out,” he said, arguing the agency had already committed to the total dollar amount and should keep payments on schedule.

Agency members questioned legal and budget implications. Speaker 3 asked whether the agency should preserve an escape clause in case state law changed to reduce or eliminate tax increment payments. Speaker 5 responded that the agency’s contractual commitment to the total amount would remain despite later statutory changes: “they might change the rules moving forward, but it really wouldn't relieve us of any obligation that we've made contractually in the agreement.” Speaker 2 added that legislatures typically do not interfere with existing contracts and described the contested paragraph as largely precautionary.

Officials also clarified how payments are structured. Speakers discussed language referencing “an aggregate of $175,000”; members confirmed there is a $175,000 payment upon signing and another payment in February, and noted the incentive schedule is front-loaded (one speaker said roughly 45% of total amounts are paid in the first two years). The record shows the agreement provides for earlier, larger payments with later years reduced.

Discussion addressed performance and transfer issues. Speakers noted much of the work the incentive was intended to encourage—building improvements and staffing—had already been accomplished under the original agreement, and that a change in ownership or an involuntary transfer (for example through bankruptcy) could trigger termination rights: the agency retains a right to terminate for an unauthorized transfer, and the agency sent notice consistent with the original agreement. One speaker observed it may be unfortunate that the original developer did not fully benefit from the incentives while incoming owners could realize more of the value.

Speaker 4 moved to adopt Resolution R2445; Speaker 5 seconded. During the roll call, the transcript records the following responses: “Jeffrey” — aye; “Jeff” — aye; “Tony” — aye; “Dan” — no recorded response on the record; “Eric” — yes. The chair announced, “That's unanimous.” The resolution was recorded as approved.

The meeting had no further business; the chair adjourned the meeting for 15 minutes.

Votes at a glance Resolution R2445 — Adopted. Motion to approve offered by Speaker 4; second by Speaker 5. Recorded responses in roll call: Jeffrey — aye; Jeff — aye; Tony — aye; Eric — yes; Dan — no recorded response. Chair announced the result as unanimous.

What it means By approving the amendment, the agency removed the year-to-year shortfall clause and left in place the agency’s contractual commitment to the total incentive amount while preserving the agency’s budgetary review each year and its right to terminate if an unauthorized transfer or nonoperation occurs. The amendment also clarified timing and structure of payments under the incentive schedule.

Next steps No additional actions were recorded at the meeting; the agency adjourned.