There is nothing like a good ol’ fashioned landfill controversy to keep the news mill filled. Let’s start back at the beginning with Cassandra Favre’s account of the April 2, 2019 Board of Supervisor’s meeting for the Sea Coast Echo:
The Hancock County Board of Supervisors on Monday voted 3-2 to deny Boudin’s Environmental Waste’s request to upgrade the dump site on Rifle Range Road to a Class One.
On Feb. 12, the Hancock County Solid Waste Authority hosted a public hearing and later, unanimously approved the application and amendment to the solid waste management plan.
What’s interesting here is the fact that Board of Supervisor President Blaine Lafontaine voted to allow the Class One Rubbish site as a then member of the Solid Waste Authority. He would late change his point of view on the issue when it came before him again at the Board of Supervisor’s meeting. There are a couple of other snippets that need further color:
According to an MDEQ report, LaFontaine said, statewide there has been a 22 percent increase in out-of-state rubbish in the past five years.
King Landfill is the only current active site in Hancock County, LaFontaine said. Over the past five years, the site went from receiving 22,000 tons to 18,000 tons and 11,000 from out-of-state down to 5,000, he said.
LaFontaine said that the question before the board is, “is there a need in Hancock County?” He said that maybe the only thing the board could look at as a “need” would be competitive pricing.
MDEQ recommends there be two Class One sites in the county, one in the north end and one in the south end. The site Boudin wants to operate is close to the south side, LaFontaine said.
Gotta give Cassandra props here because her account of the political crawfishin’ is a good depiction of the events that day. First Lafontaine bobs by citing a statewide factoid that, even if true, is not an accurate picture of the reality in Hancock County, which has seen a pretty steep decline in out of state trash. The third paragraph tells the tale because the three Sups that voted against the recommendation of the Solid Waste Authority were really more interested in protecting the existing landfill monopoly in Hancock Parish than fostering price competition and creating new jobs. District 1 Sup David Yarborough summed it up:
Supervisor David Yarborough said he “sees no reason why we couldn’t pass to allow this man to improve his business in Hancock County.”
“There have been three things in the past that have kept him from getting it: Politics, greed and jealousy,” Yarborough said.
This become topical again here on Slabbed because of this comment Lana Noonan left about the last Board of Supervisors meeting:
Board of Supervisors in Executive Session right now:
Agenda item J. County Attorney: J-4.
Motion passed 5-0 to enter Exec. Sess. for potential litigation concerning Shelter and Annex professionals and contractors: Phillips Pest Control and Boudin Environmental Services. Just came out of Exec. Sess. no action taken.
So I took a peek at the case on MEC and what I found was interesting as the matter appears to be fully briefed and awaiting a decision. First a disclaimer, here at Slabbed we’re not lawyers and we are likely never to be such. That said we do have some experience to lend in these matters so that everyone can benefit from knowing what is going on in their community. Following is the brief team Boudin submitted in support of the Bill of Exceptions:
Boudin v Board of Sups Boudin Brief by Slabbed on Scribd
The above is long and is mostly exhibits in support of their claim and I’m not going to spend much time analyzing it. Boudin’s legal team made some very concise arguments including the claim that the Supervisors back filled their minutes with a resolution that never occurred. I recommend reading Cassandra Favre’s story and compare it to what the Supervisors later said happened. It appears that particular complaint from Team Boudin has legs. Next up is the Supervirsors reply brief and their exhibits, which were filed with the Court separately:
Boudin v Board of Sups Sups Reply by Slabbed on Scribd
And now the Supervisor’s Exhibits, which I contend contains the most single important piece of evidence in the report of Compton Engineering on the need for another Class One site:
Boudin v Board of Sups Sups Reply Exhibits by Slabbed on Scribd
Here is what the Supervisors said in their reply brief about Compton’s report:
Compton reviewed the application and opined that BES failed to demonstrate a need to meet the statutory requirements for amendment of the Plan. (Supervisors R.E. 1, R. 1537·1550).
Here is what the Compton report actual said in its summary:
As indicated in the review the Applicant does provide some potentially positive and significant effects of an additional Class I site. As previously stated in the review these potential benefits are operating/business decisions to be contemplated by the HCSW A. The economic benefits the applicant presents while hard to specifically quantify are in fact potentially valid benefits to the public and local government entities. The applicants proposed site as submitted does appear to have adequate capacity to handle the waste stream that they have indicated they would potentially be hauling to the site…
So it appears the three Supervisors that voted no were relying on some nonexistent conclusions from their engineer. The question of law presented by the parties appears to be the exact nature of the duties of the Board of Supervisors because when it comes to landfills it apparently is to either to protect the existing landfill monopoly or get a better deal for the taxpayers through competition. In their rebuttal Team Boudin was all over the fact that three Supervisor’s relied on engineering conclusions that were never made:
Boudin v Board of Sups Boudin Rebuttal by Slabbed on Scribd
Now back to the last Supervisor’s meeting and their executive session topic of this litigation. Sources with direct knowledge of the litigation that are not authorized to speak to the media indicated to Slabbed that Team Boudin made a settlement offer wherein he would only take trash from his own operations and not third party customers. The Supervisor’s evidently refused to play because settlement talks have collapsed.
Pop some popcorn folks, indications are this case is ultimately headed for the MSSC. Stay tuned.
14 thoughts on “Bill of Exceptions Update: Boudin Environmental v Hancock Sups”
Seems to me a couple the supervisors need to be investigated why they voted no…you look at the little man’s page on Facebook he’s always on a hunting or fishing trip somewhere !!!! Time you go back and look at Jimmy Ladner‘s website one of the supervisors backyard looks like a landfill even has a dump truck dumping Something
Seems a bit out of order that one of these landfill contractors is using the taxpayer funded attorney while the other one is footing his own expenses. Neither of them are County employees entitled to such services from the public?!$.
My exact thoughts! The BOS are funding King Landfill’s monopoly on rubbish. Mr Boidin is a local taxpayer and has to fight his own money!
Are the Supervisors insulating one of the contractors from competition—that great American pass time? Politicians, of all people, should know how important that concept is. lol!! Our roadsides are covered with it right now!!!!!
Boudin and Moran don’t pay bribes. Both men know how to make a good living in a county where corruption and stupidity are at all levels of our government. I think the county better hire a better lawyer before Boudin takes them to the woodshed.
I know Boudin is straight. But Moran is in a contract credibility dispute!
Mr Boudin is an unsung charitable guy that supports people’s needs that are not public knowledge! He has never turned down a person in need even if they are inconsequential! Supports the things important or not important to him unconditionally. Waveland Civic Organization, GCCAA, and numerous other endeavors that are not appreciated! Free dumpsters and portolets to more things than I can recount! People on hard times etc!
Some do give a lot.
But dig a little and see things that went on after Katrina. Like who was wired to save their own ass. Or who’s pit was burned when it was full so he could continue to collect debris. Or who had the most DEQ violations with a pit. Or you want more? Because there is plenty more. Do some homework before you hang a medal on someone. Yes he does give to a lot of groups. But no angel by any means.
The state senator. Can control money that comes to our county. So county gives him a contract. So he gets investigated and facts and numbers don’t add up to what he has turned in. Makes a good living at whose expense? Screwing the county he represents and lives in.
And county and cities received no BP funds. But everyone else is the crooks and guilty. Damn this is scary who you put on a pedestal. And we blast Hillary and the Democrats and the lefties down town. . Scary shit here.
Moran should support us whether we enrich him or not! We pay him and elect him to do that!
The only organization I see him support besides himself is the chamber! You google his business it shows up there first! You may not agree but they are parasitical and only represent those that benefit their coffers! Does he fit that? Maybe/maybe not. I personally feel he does because it is political advancement! Let’s see how that shakes out moving forward!
We all see it from our own perspective! I like to see credit where it is due as well as discredit! I appreciate your point of Veiw on the facts as me or you know them!
Supervisor Yarbarough’s statements are even more concerning about the 3 things stopping another landfill. I believe he worked for another pit owner after the storm. Same one that got a beach clean up contract from the county for all them years. . Did he vote on this as a supervisor and award him a contract and payments. Or for special cleanups? Check out what they were charging to keep up the beach compared to what is being charged now. Talk about grease jobs. Check it out. Seems we always want to overlook some criminals and their actions to create scandals in one’s mind. Or because we like them and dislike the others.
Who’s on the solid waste authority?
2 past councilman that served with him.
The landowner ‘s brother of the land that was purchased by mr. B where he wants to put a this site.
Any of them take fishing trips with me. B
I know at least one does. And maybe hunting as well. Don’t pay bribes. Really.
HHH, CH, EF or whoever you are, why don’t you send your proof of all this wrongdoing to Slabbed or the proper authorities. Elected officials are prime targets for the media and investigators. You seem to know a lot of interesting stuff that I don’t believe. I know most of what you are saying is false and some I don’t know about. You sound like someone with an ax to grind. Are you one that went to jail or had to resign to avoid prosecution?
So, we are being fleeced by contractors?!$
I lay that right at the feet of our elected officials, Supervisors in this case. You can expect the fleecers to do what they do, but they don’t take an oath to uphold the laws like our Supervisors and other elected do who are supposed to be looking out for us, all of us, not some of us. That’s what we elect them and pay them to do.
And by the way, as for the Solid Waste Commission members; we now have 2 brothers serving– Eddie and Mike( both of whom I like) but the facts are the facts. When Blaine resigned last year, he brought up in his section of the Agenda to have Eddie replace him. I have never understood why this Commission has to be filled by politicians. Are there no citizens anywhere in Hancock County who could serve?
The Supervisors have allowed Moran’s contract to go 31 months with no mention of non compliance until this year based on an unsigned, undated study that someone did. They could have at least initialed it since it is now a public document in our county.
Yep, the alleged fleecers don’t
always fly solo. There’s usually
others in the cockpit, and the fleecers may not always be in the pilot’s seat!!
The King Landfill has no competition and takes waste from out of state cheaper than the citizens of Hancock County. Blaine said that competition was all that another waste facility would bring. With and in of itself should be enough but choices are what’s best for the residents. King does not maintain its approaches and site. After or during rain events it is inaccessible. This has been brought up many times. This lack of infrastructure diligence creates a situation where people throw it to the curb and later the county has to pay to clean it up. Competition would create competitive pricing and make operational standards increase.
Not sure what connection the owners of King have but one owner is a past supervisor.
The supervisors should be creating a competitive environment for all services that they pay for with our money!
Comments are closed.