Acadia Parish committee hears business complaints over Economic Development District; options include shrinking map or changing tax rules

Committee members and local business leaders spent a meeting on whether to recommend the police jury remove or exempt parcels from Acadia Parish Economic Development District No. 1, a tax increment created in 2022 to fund targeted infrastructure.

Luke, who introduced the agenda item, told the committee the district was formed after two newspaper notices and a jury vote because there are no registered voters inside the district. "The district's purpose basically is to incentivize economic development in the district," he said, describing the EDD as a tool to pay for sewer, water and roads that a single business might need.

Taylor Henry of the Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development said EDDs are "a tool in the tool belt" and cautioned that economic development is a long game. He told members the EDD account was small at last check—"about $200 and some odd thousand"—and urged the parish to remain competitive while weighing reforms.

Business owners on both sides of the map said the extra 2% levy is harming established firms that do not benefit from new infrastructure. One owner complained that the district effectively raised input costs, saying residents and some businesses "were not notified" in a way they saw as meaningful. Gilles Perron, who identified himself at the meeting and said his business at 1517 West Mill already has private road, water and sewage, asked "Please consider me to be removed." Alan Lawson, representing Bocage Crawfish, said his operation lacks a retail outlet and asked why inputs should be taxed differently across nearby competitors.

Committee members and staff responded that the EDD formation complied with statutory notice requirements and that sales and use taxes are collected by the school board. Staff and former parish president Representative Chance Henry described how an EDD gives the parish a statutory vessel to finance infrastructure on private property—pulling city water or sewer to a developer's site when otherwise the parish could not fund work on private property.

Henry also proposed a targeted statutory approach as a potential compromise: "one thing that might work for you to do is to remove the use tax provision," which, if legally feasible, could exempt existing businesses from paying the EDD's use-tax component while leaving sales-tax obligations intact for retail sellers. Committee members noted the statutes cited in the notice define sales tax to include use tax, and legal counsel or tax attorneys (Adams and Reese were named as the firm involved in the district's setup) will need to advise whether such an exclusion could be implemented in ordinance and software used by vendors.

No formal decision was made. Committee members said they will study alternatives—including narrowing the district map, removing specific parcels, or asking Adams and Reese to return with a legal analysis—and continue conversations with affected business owners and the Chamber. The meeting closed after a motion to adjourn was seconded and carried.

The committee did not vote on dissolving the district or on any parcel removals at this session; members emphasized any change to the district would require action by the police jury and could carry legal or administrative complications, including potential litigation if selective exclusions were seen as favoritism.