1st Circuit Clearly Misinterpreted What Kind of ‘Plan’ St. George Had to Submit

By Woody Jenkins, Editor, Central City News – Baton Rouge

On July 14, 2023, Judge Mitch Theriot of Louisiana’s 1st Circuit Court struck down the incorporation of the City of St. George. He did so on the basis that the incorporators of the City of St. George failed to provide a ‘plan’ for rendering municipal services as required by La. R.S. 33:1.

I had the pleasure of serving with Mitch Theriot when he was a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives. He is obviously a fine judge who writes well thought out, even scholarly, legal opinions.

In his opinion on St. George, the judge adroitly steps through Louisiana’s law on incorporation with all its nuances.

One good thing about the opinion is he ruled that Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome was not a proper party to the suit.  In order to file suit, the law is very clear that she would have to be a resident of the proposed new city, a property owner in the proposed new city,  the municipality itself, or a member of the governing authority of Baton Rouge (the Metro Council).  She met none of those criteria.  The amazing thing is that it took the courts four years to recognize the obvious and throw the honorable mayor out of court!

Unfortunately, Judge Theriot fell into error when he ruled that the incorporators did not provide an adequate plan for the new city.

The district court previously ruled that the incorporators of St. George “minimally satisfies the requirements of the statutes.”

Judge Theriot reversed that holding of the district court and ruled instead that “Although the petition listed the services that would be provided, the petition did not provide the necessary information to place citizens of the area to be incorporated on notice of a plan for provision of those services.”

State law provides in La.R.S. 33:1 that the Secretary of State will provide the form for the petition to be used for gathering signatures, and that any form that does not conform to that form will be invalid.

Furthermore, the statute clearly provides the information which must appear on each petition form.  The amount of information required to appear on each petition is very great.  See opposite page. The statute provides as follows:

La.R.S. 33:1: “The secretary of state shall provide a form approved by the attorney general to be used for the petition for an incorporation election. Such form shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Section and R.S. 18:3. All incorporation petitions shall be on an approved form or on a form which contains the same information as required on the approved form and any petition not on such form shall be invalid. The incorporation petition shall include the following information:

(1) A legal description of the area proposed for incorporation, a map of the area proposed for incorporation, and the statement that all lands included in the area constitute a contiguous area. The description shall also include a list of every parish in which the proposed area of incorporation is wholly or partially situated.

(2) A statement of the number of inhabitants residing in the unincorporated area of the proposed incorporation. Such statement shall be based on the latest federal decennial census or another current population report or count which is verifiable.

(3) A statement of the assessed value of the immovable property located in the unincorporated area.

(4) A listing of the public services the municipal corporation proposes to render to the area and a plan for the provision of these services.

(5) A statement of the corporate name desired for the new municipality.

(6) The names of two persons, who shall be designated as chairperson and vice chairperson, for the petition for incorporation who shall serve as agents for the petitioners in all legal matters, including the receipt of notices. Notice will be sufficient if served on the chairperson or vice chairperson.”

Therefore, the entire list of services and the plan to provide those services must appear on the petition itself!

The form of the petition approved by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General is only one sheet front and back.  Just the description of the boundaries and map of a proposed municipality takes up one side.  And of course there must be room for printed names, addresses, and signatures of petitioners.

The statute is vague about what is to be included in “the plan for the provision of these services” but one thing is certain: The plan cannot be detailed, because it must fit on the petition!

If the Court of Appeal was expecting a detailed business plan for the new city, that is obviously not what the law contemplates, because, as the court notes, the law must not be interpreted to create absurd results. The law contemplates voters being handed a petition — not a 20-page booklet.

In fact, the incorporators of the City of St. George did an excellent job of doing precisely what the law requires regarding the list of public services to be provided and a plan to provide those services.

Here’s the list of public services which the City of St. George proposed to provide and the plan for providing those services. The bold faced items are the public services to be provided and the italicized language is the plan for providing those services.  This appeared on every petition signed by voters.

“1. Public Safety services through the continuation of services provided by St. George Fire Protection District, East Side Fire District, and the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office.

“2. Sanitation and garbage collection through the continuation of services provided by the consolidated garbage service district.

“3. Sewerage by continuation of services through the East Baton Rouge [Parish] consolidated sewer district.

“4. Emergency Medical Services though continuation of service by the EBR Parish Department of EMS.

“5. 911 Services through continuation of services provided by the East Baton Rouge Parish 911 District.

“6. The City of St. George may provide the following services through contractor(s) or municipal staff:

“6a. Regulation of property use by adoption of planning and zoning ordinance.

“6.b. Building Inspections.

“6.c. Traffic signs and signals.

“6.d. Maintenance and improvement of municipal public streets and roads.

“6.e. Maintenance of right of way. 

“6.f. Maintenance and improvements of drainage system.

“6.h. Animal control.

“All services will be provided subject to the availability of funds derived from taxes, license fees, permits and other revenue which become available to the municipality and are authorized by state law.”

For the incorporators to be expected to provide more than that and still fit on a petition is unreasonable and not what the law contemplates.

The plaintiffs in this case made much of the fact that providing services depends on the availability of funds, but isn’t that always the case everywhere and for everything?

The Court of Appeal can take judicial notice of the U.S. Census that provides that the household income in St. George is over $90,000 a year, the highest of any municipality in Louisiana.  The notion that the new city will not have enough money to provide for essential services is far-fetched indeed.

The 1st Circuit should reverse its decision or the Supreme Court should overturn it.  The plan for St. George is more than adequate!  

The petition very well describes the services to be provided and the plan for providing them in the space available!