Committee forwards recommendations to council after heated review of St. Tammany Mosquito Abatement District

The St. Tammany Parish Government Efficiency Committee voted unanimously to forward a package of recommendations about the St. Tammany Parish Mosquito Abatement District (MAD) to the full parish council after public comment and a district rebuttal.

The committee recommended keeping the district’s funding on a dedicated millage but reducing the rate to approximately 2 mills, which the committee estimated would generate about $6,200,000 annually. Committee chair said the lower rate would "require budgetary adjustments that would not jeopardize the quality of the services" and urged additional business expertise on the district board to improve fiscal oversight.

Public commentators pressed the committee for accountability. Glenn Uhack, who identified himself as a mechanical engineer, said he visited MAD’s Slidell facility and raised concerns about an expanded laboratory and other costs. "Reduced response time can save lives," Uhack said while arguing the new lab and in‑house testing change the district’s cost structure. He also alleged that opposition stakeholders and actions by the district attorney have blocked appeals for independent audits and that some internal decisions amount to fiscal waste.

Chris Handy, legal counsel for the Mosquito Abatement District, told the committee the district has "always been committed to transparency" and that MAD presented a multi‑speaker public meeting and a written rebuttal that had been circulated to council members. Handy said the presentation addressed testing, the $8,000,000 facility expansion, fleet and benefit costs, and the district's patent plan, and urged committee members to review the district's materials before deciding.

On specific financial points raised in public comment and committee discussion: committee members and speakers cited an earlier annual testing contract with LSU for about $37,000; testimony said the district expanded in‑house testing capacity and increased staffing and kit costs (the record includes references to a larger laboratory project of about $8,000,000 and increased laboratory personnel costs). Public commenters argued those changes replaced the previous $37,000 per year outsourced testing with substantially larger internal expenses; district counsel and staff said MAD’s presentation explains its operational needs and the local factors that differentiate St. Tammany from other parishes.

The committee's other recommendations included an external evaluation of laboratory operations and other questionable expenses; pursuing statutory or legislative changes so the parish would have greater budgetary oversight of the district; and adding business expertise to the district's board. The chair said the committee’s legal staff would explore whether existing parish ordinances suffice or whether special legislation must be addressed with the legislative delegation.

Procedural outcome: Mister Loeffel moved to forward the recommendations to the full parish council; Cheryl Tanner seconded the motion; the chair announced the motion "carries unanimously." The committee did not take any binding action beyond forwarding the recommendations; the full council will make the final decision.

What’s next: The committee asked staff to compile the review materials for the council, and the recommendations could be placed on an upcoming parish council agenda. The committee also noted it hopes any statutory changes would be considered by the legislative delegation after the next legislative session.

Votes at a glance: A single committee motion to forward the recommendations to the parish council was moved by Mister Loeffel, seconded by Cheryl Tanner, and was recorded as passing unanimously by the chair.

Details and context: The record includes additional public comments alleging specific items of concern such as travel expenditures (a $56,000 travel figure was cited), generous employee benefit contributions for family medical coverage, use or acquisition of aircraft (including discussion of buying vs. leasing helicopters and a non‑operational spray plane), and an alleged $250,000 allocation for outside legal services referenced in committee discussion. The district’s counsel said the MAD presentation explained royalty/patent plans intended to reduce taxpayer burden and potential millage. Several committee members emphasized the parish’s responsibility to set millage levels and to seek efficiencies where possible.

The committee adjourned and will next meet in January; the forwarded recommendations now await a full parish council vote.