Must New Orleans wait out every review period before approving a payment-in-lieu-of-tax proposal?

Plain-English summary

Senator Royce Duplessis asked whether New Orleans officials had to use the entire review periods in La. R.S. 33:130.865.1 before advancing a payment-in-lieu-of-tax proposal, and whether a recent council approval was invalid because they acted early. The official opinion says the periods "are not required to be exhausted" for approval or disapproval.

The statute gives the New Orleans Office of Economic Development 45 days from receipt to review a PILOT proposal and transmit a recommendation to the council. The AG found no requirement that the office wait all 45 days before transmitting it. The council then has a 15-day review period, followed by a 30-day legislative period. The AG said the council could move into the legislative period once it had completed its review, even if fewer than 15 days had elapsed.

The opinion concludes that the council's action to approve the proposal "is not invalid" simply because the office or council did not use every day allowed. It does not assess other grounds on which a particular PILOT agreement might be challenged.

What this means for you

New Orleans economic development staff. The AG said the office may send its recommendation to the council clerk before the 45-day period ends.

City Council members. The opinion says the council may start its 30-day legislative period after completing review without waiting for all 15 review days to pass.

PILOT proponents. The opinion removes one timing objection to the council approval described in the request: acting before the maximum periods expired did not make that approval invalid.

Common questions

Must the economic development office wait 45 days to transmit a PILOT recommendation?
No. The AG said the office may transmit it before the end of that period.

Must the council use all 15 review days before moving to the legislative period?
No. The opinion says it may proceed after finishing review, even if the 15 days have not all elapsed.

Did the council's early approval become invalid for that timing reason?
No. The AG expressly said the approval was not invalid because the statutory review periods were not exhausted.

Background and statutory framework

Act 212 of the 2023 Regular Session enacted La. R.S. 33:130.865.1 for PILOT incentives by the New Orleans Exposition Hall Authority Growth and Development District and its subdistricts. The opinion quotes the review and council-decision sequence in subsection (B)(4). It applies the statute's text to the timing questions without deciding the merits of a particular proposal.

Citations and references

Law cited: La. R.S. 33:130.865.1, especially subsection (B)(4), and La. C.C. arts. 9 and 13.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/23-0132

Original opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA
DF:RRFMF:NT OF’ JUSTICE
OvIwE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 94OO
BAroN RoLx;E, LA
70804-9005

Liz MuRRILI,
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 24, 2024
OPINION 23-0132
107-A SPECIAL DISTRICTS
The Honorable Royce Duplessis
Senator, District 5
La. R.S. 33:130.865.1

643 Magazine Street
The time periods contained in La. R.S. 33:130.865.1 are
Suite 302
not required to be exhausted by New Orleans Office of
Economic Development or the New Orleans City Council
New Orleans, LA 701 30
in order for the approval or disapproval of a PILOT
proposal.

Dear Senator Duplessis:

You have requested an opinion from our office regarding time periods contained in Act 212 of the 2023 Regular Session. Your request has been assigned to me for research and reply.

Act 212 of the 2023 Regular Session enacted La. R.S. 33:130.865.1, which allows the New Orleans Exposition Hall Authority Growth and Development District (“District”), and any subdistricts thereof, to provide economic development incentives in the form of
payment-in-lieu-of tax (“PILOT”) agreements. Louisiana Revised Statute
33:130.865.1(B)(4) sets forth the approval process of the proposed PILOT agreements and provides, in pertinent part, the following:
the office of economic development shall have forty-five days from the date that the proposal is received to review the payment in lieu of tax proposal, pursuant to those standards in this Section and any additional requirements which may be adopted by the office of economic development, and transmit a recommendation of approval or denial to the New Orleans City Council through the Clerk of the City Council. The city council shall have fifteen days from the date that the proposal is received by its clerk to review the payment in lieu of tax proposal, followed by an additional thirty-day period to adopt a resolution disapproving or approving, with or without amendments, the proposal. The thirty-day approval period shall include a hearing before the city council economic development committee, which may recommend a vote of disapproval, approval, or approval with amendments on the resolution to the full city council.

Turning to your first question, you would like to know if the New Orleans Office of Economic Development (“Office”) is required to exhaust the entire forty-five day review period afforded to it before it can transmit its recommendation to the New Orleans City Council (“City Council”). The starting point for the interpretation of any statute is “the

Page 2

OPINION 23-0132
Honorable Royce Duplessis
Page 2

language of the statute itself.”1 The basic tenets of statutory construction and interpretation which apply to the statute are found in the Louisiana Civil Code and Title I of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. Your attention is directed to the following articles of the Louisiana Civil Code and Louisiana Revised Statutes:

La. C.C. art. 9: When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.

La. C.C. art. I I : The words of a law must be given their generally prevailing meaning. Words of art and technical terms must be given their technical meaning when the law involves a technical matter.

La. C.C. art. 13: Laws on the same subject matter must be interpreted in reference to each other.

La. R.S. I :3 Words and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. Technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning. The word “shall” is mandatory and the word “may” is permissive.

This office has reviewed the language of La. R.S. 33:130.865.1 using the foregoing rules of statutory construction. The statute clearly and succinctly allows the Office up to forty- five (45) days from the date the proposal is received to review any PILOT proposal and transmit a recommendation of approval or denial to the New Orleans City Council. We find no language within La. R.S. 33:130.865.1 to require the Office to exhaust all forty- five days prior to transmitting its recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the Office may send its recommendation to the City Council clerk prior to the conclusion of the forty-five (45) day time period.

You have also asked this office if the city council is required to exhaust the entire fifteen (I 5) day review period afforded to it before it can commence the thirty (30) day legislative period. Utilizing the same tenets of statutory construction outlined above, the plain language contained in La. R.S. 33:130.865.1 provides that the City Council must have fifteen (15) days from the date its clerk receives the PILOT proposal to review the proposal. However, the statute does not require the City Council to exhaust the entire fifteen day review period prior to commencing the thirty (30) days legislative period. Therefore, if the City Council reviews the PILOT proposal prior to the conclusion of the allotted fifteen day period, it may proceed into the thirty day legislative period.

1
Touchard v. Williams, 617 So.2d 885, 888 (La. 1993), superseded on other grounds by statute in Dumas v. State ex rel Dep’t of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, 02-0563 (La. 10/15/02), 828 So.2d 530; Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 95-2895 (La.5/20/97), 694 So.2d 184,186.

Page 3

OPINION 23-0132
Honorable Royce Duplessis
Page 3

Finally, you have asked this office if the Office of Economic Development or the City Council chooses not to utilize all of the review time afforded by the legislature, is the City Council’s recent vote to approve the PILOT invalid. In light of our answers to your two previous questions above, the answer to your question is clear. Since the City Council is not required to exhaust the time periods allowed via statute, its action to approve the PILOT is not invalid.

It is the opinion of this office that the time periods contained in La. R.S. 33:130.865.1 are not required to be exhausted by New Orleans Office of Economic Development or the New Orleans City Council in order for the approval or disapproval of a PILOT proposal.

We trust that this adequately responds to your request and the issue that you have raised. If our office can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

With best regards,
LIZ MURRILL
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:___
Brett A. Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

LM/BAR